Sanksi Pelanggaran pasal 22

Undang-undang Nomor 19 Tahun 2002

Tentang Hak Cipta
1. Barang siapa dengan sengaja dan tanpa hak melakukan kegiatan sebagaimana
dimaksud dalam pasal 2 ayat (1) atau pasal 49 ayat (1) dan ayat (2) dipidana
dengan penjara paling singkat 1 (satu) bulan dan/denda paling sedikit
Rp.1.000.000,- (satu juta rupiah) atau pidana penjara paling lama 7 tahun dan
atau denda paling banyak [Link],- (lima milyar rupiah)
2. Barang siapa dengan sengaja menyiarkan atau mengedarkan atau menjual
kepada umum suatu ciptaan atau barang hasil hak pelanggaran cipta atau Hak
terkait sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1), dipidana dengan penjara paling
lama 5 tahun atau denda paling banyak Rp. 500.000.000,- (lima ratus juta rupiah)
Prof. Dr. Abd. Hakim Yassi, Dipl, TESL, M.A
Dr. Andi Kaharuddin Bahar, [Link], [Link]
Prof. Dr. Abd. Hakim Yassi, Dipl, TESL, M.A
Dr. Andi Kaharuddin Bahar, [Link], [Link]
SYLLABUS DESIGN FOR ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING
Yogyakarta: 2015
XIII+224 hal.; 14,5 x 20,5 cm

Hak Cipta dilindungi undang-undang.

Dilarang memperbanyak atau memindahkan sebagian atau seluruh isi buku ini
dalam bentuk apapun, baik secara elektris maupun mekanis, termasuk
memfotocopy, merekam atau dengan sistem penyimpanan lainnya, tanpa izin
tertulis dari Penulis dan Penerbit.

Penulis : Prof. Dr. Abd. Hakim Yassi, Dipl, TESL, M.A

Dr. Andi Kaharuddin Bahar, [Link], [Link]
Desain Cover : Alazuka
Layout Isi : Orbit trust
Cetakan I : Desember 2015
ISBN : 978-602-73678-0-7

Penerbit : TrustMedia Publishing

Jl. Cendrawasih No. 3 Maguwo-Banguntapan
Bantul-Yogyakarta
Telp./Fax. +62 274 4539208 dan +62 81328230858.
e-mail: trustmedia_publishing@[Link]

Percetakan : CV. Orbittrust Corp.

Jl. Cendrawasih No. 3 Maguwo-Banguntapan
Bantul-Yogyakarta
Telp./Fax. +62 274 4539208 dan +62 81328230858.
e-mail: orbit_trust@[Link]

iv I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

 CONTENTS

PREFACE … ......................................................................................................... vii

PART ONE
Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1
A. English Status in the Curriculum of Indonesia ........................................ 1
B. The Outcomes of English Language Teaching in Indonesia ............... 6

PART TWO
Syllabus Design in English Language Teaching .................................... 11
A. Curriculum and Syllabus ................................................................................ 11
B. Syllabus Design Models .................................................................................. 13
1. The Models of Syllabus Design in ESP .............................................. 14
2. The Models of Syllabus Design in Language
Curriculum Development ..................................................................... 20

PART THREE
Needs Analysis in Syllabus Design ............................................................ 27
A. Needs Analysis in Theoretical Perspectives ........................................... 27
1. The concept of Needs Analysis in ESP .............................................. 27
2. The Concept of Needs Analysis in
Language Program Development ...................................................... 32
B. The Systematic Procedures of Needs Analysis ...................................... 34
1. Making Decision About the Needs Analysis .................................. 34
2. Gathering Information ............................................................................ 35
3. Using the Information ............................................................................ 38

PART FOUR
Communicative Competence and Syllabus Design ............................. 39
A. Communicative Competence in English Language Teaching ......... 39

Abd. Hakim Yassi dan Andi Kaharuddin Bahar I v

B. Syllabus Design Frameworks ........................................................................ 43
C. Communicative Competence as an Alternative Approach
to Syllabus Design in ELT................................................................................ 47
D. Genesis of Communicative Competence-Based Syllabus Design .. 51

PART FIVE
Communicative Competence-Based Syllabus Design ........................ 57
A. The Procedures of Communicative Competence-Based Syllabus. 57
1. Step One (Preliminary Phase) ............................................................. 58
2. Step Two (Development Phase) ......................................................... 58
3. Step Three (Review Phase) ................................................................... 58
B. Implications of Implementing The Communicative
Competence-Based Syllabus Procedures ................................................. 60
1. Communicative Competence-Based Syllabus Design Model . 61
2. A Framework for Communicative Competence-Based Syllabus 66

PART SIX
Methodology of Designing Communicative
Competence-Based Syllabus ....................................................................... 71
A. The Preliminary Phase ..................................................................................... 71
1. Making Decisions in a Needs Analysis ............................................. 72
2. Gathering Information of the Needs Analysis................................ 80
3. Using the Needs Analysis Information ............................................119
B. The Development Phase ................................................................................130
1. Selecting Syllabus Content ...................................................................130
2. Planning Course Structure (Designing Syllabus) .......................135
3. Developing Instructional Materials ..................................................149
a. Lesson Plans of Speaking Course one ....................................149
b. Instructional Materials for Speaking Course One .............155
c. Instructional Materials Review by the Experts .................168
C. The Review Phase ............................................................................................173
1. Implementing the Instructional Materials in the Classroom 174
2. Evaluating the Outcomes of Learning .............................................176

BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................. 211

vi I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

 PREFACE

This book is entitled "Syllabus Design for English Language

Teaching". It mainly provides detailed elucidation of the process of
designing a syllabus as one of systematic steps of curriculum
development in language teaching. Curriculum development in
language teaching should be done since it implies an effort carried out
by the language teachers to improve the quality of language teaching
through some stages of systematic planning such as a needs analysis,
formulation of learning objectives, development of syllabus and
teaching materials, teaching materials’ implementation as well as
evaluation to find out the effectiveness of the curriculum by taking into
account the achievement of learning goals in language teaching
program.
The theoretical basis used to elucidate the syllabus design
procedures in this book is the theory of curriculum development
propounded by Jack C. Richards (a professor of applied linguistics at the
University of Sydney Australia) in 2001. Richards is of the opinion that
curriculum development in language teaching can be done through
seven systematic stages i.e. needs analysis, situational analysis,
planning learning outcomes, course organization, selecting and
preparing teaching materials, providing for effective teaching, and
evaluation. Based on Richards’ theory, syllabus design lies in the stage
of selecting and preparing teaching materials in which Richards himself
termed it as course planning and syllabus design stage. The section has
been the focus in the elucidation of this book.
According to Nunan (1988), syllabus design is to select and to
organize teaching materials (selection and grading of content). The
concept has led the writers make serious efforts to introduce a model of
syllabus design which is developed by several systematic procedures
ranging from conducting a needs analysis, preparing teaching
materials, to setting up stages of evaluation to prove the effectiveness
of the implementing the syllabus design and its developed teaching
materials. For the reason, this book generally includes some
information on the discussion of:

Abd. Hakim Yassi dan Andi Kaharuddin Bahar I vii

a. The status of English in the education system of Indonesia and the
outcomes of English teaching all this time according to researchers
in the field of language teaching,
b. the distinction between the terms of curriculum and syllabus
therewith the syllabus design theory from the standpoint of ESP and
Language Program Development,
c. theory of needs analysis as the main cornerstone in the
development of syllabus design,
d. the concept and the theory of communicative competence based
syllabus design,
e. the systematic stages in designing a competency-based syllabus
ranging from preliminary stages with the needs analysis, the stage
of teaching materials development, as well as the stage of reviewing
the learning outcomes.
f. A practical example of a study which is presented to make the
readers clearly understand how to apply the stages of developing
the communicative competence based syllabus design.
With this work, the writers have made effort to give a
contribution to the development of syllabus design theory in particular
and the theory of curriculum development in general by presenting
views on syllabus design and framework which are different from the
pre existing syllabus designs and frameworks in English teaching. In
addition, the syllabus design is developed in three simple and
systematic stages as a solution to the confusion of some English
teachers all this time in designing course syllabus and developing
teaching materials which suit their students’ needs. Accordingly, a
course syllabus and its teaching materials are no longer developed
based on teachers’ intuitions and perceptions, but based on a needs
analysis for the sake of attaining highly qualified learning outcomes.

Makassar September 30, 2015

The authors,

Abdul Hakim Yassi

[Link] Bahar

viii I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

 Introduction

A. English Status in the Curriculum of Indonesia

Indonesia as a multilingual society is very well known as a
heterogeneous and multicultural country which is occupied by a large
number of population with different religions, ethnic groups as well as
cultures. The phenomenon of multilingualism in Indonesia is common
since it has historically always been a multicultural country, with
people of various ethnic groups who speak within the country in more
than one language in their social lives. As Ellis (2003:11) says,
multilingualism is the norm in many African and Asian countries. In
addition, the data presented by UNESCO (2003) provide interesting
information in which Indonesia is internationally recognized as the
largest multilingual population in the world only after Papua New
Guinea.
As a multilingual country, Indonesia covers four kinds of
languages used for communication among people in the daily lives. The
first one is the regional languages. Territory of Indonesia which extends
from Sabang to Merauke has absolutely contributed to cultural
diversity with over 300 different ethnic groups with 726 living regional
languages spread out in the regions of Indonesia in 2009
([Link]). The second one is the national language, Indonesian
which was established as the unifying language in 1928, even before
the Indonesian independence. Today, Indonesian is understood and
spoken by the majority of Indonesians for communicating among
people from different language backgrounds and as a means of daily
social interaction, a medium of instruction in education, or as a means

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 1

of political or media communication and for formal occasions. The third
one consists of variants of Indonesian (a mixture of the standard
Indonesian and the regional vernaculars). Thus, most Indonesians are
bilingual or even multilingual, speaking Indonesian as the national
language during formal occasions, variants of the Indonesian language
and the regional language as the mother tongue. The last category is
foreign languages. A number of foreign languages have been learned
and in use for some time. These include Dutch, Arabic, English, German,
French, Japanese, and Chinese. However, English has a special status
among these foreign languages.
English is very important for Indonesia and the reason most
frequently puts forward for this is that English is a global or
international language. The global status of English is partly due to the
number of people who speak it. Crystal (2003: 67-69) estimates that in
2.000 there were approximately 1,500 million speakers of English
worldwide, consisting of around 329 million mother tongue speakers
(mostly in inner circle or predominantly English speaking countries),
430 million second language speakers (outer circle countries) and
about 750 million speakers of English as a foreign language in the
countries of the expanding circle and of course, the number of these
significantly increases these days.
With reference to the recent status of English as a foreign language
in Indonesia, Lie (2007:3) argues that outside the academic and
professional worlds, English has never been widely used as the lingua
franca of the majority of the population in Indonesia. However, a few
Indonesians still use it in their daily social interactions. In the academic
sector, academicians, both students and professors, are quite familiar
with English and occasionally use it as a means of academic
communication. Besides, those who are involved not only in the main
level of management such as bankers and government officials,
politicians but also in entertainment such as artist, radio announcers or
television presenters apply code-mixing (combining) and code-
switching (changing rapidly) between Indonesian and English in their
daily lives.
In addition, English is presently recognized as the only foreign
language included as a compulsory subject in schools which is taught

2 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

for eight or nine years from primary schools (from Grade 4 or 5) to
universities. Meanwhile, other foreign languages, like French, Chinese
or Japanese, if offered, are electives (Renandya, 2000: 115-116). There
has also been a growing tendency in many big cities in this country to
teach English beginning from the first grades of primary schools and
even from kindergarten. Referring to some policies of English language
education from primary to tertiary level in Indonesia will provide a
better picture of how English is formally learnt at schools and
universities.
English in primary education was initially taught in 1994 based on
the decree of the Ministry of Education and Culture No.060/U/1993 in
which English could be taught as a local content subject from the fourth
grade of primary school. Local content subjects are complementary
subjects selected to be taught to the pupils according to the local needs
and conditions. When the 2006 curriculum was implemented, the
Ministry of National Education gave opportunity to the primary schools
pupils to learn English as a local content subject from the first grade.
This policy was indicated by the regulation of the Ministry of National
Education No.23/2006. This act also specified the standard
competencies that had to be attained by the primary-school pupils in
learning English. The stipulated competencies covered the four
language skills e.g. (a). the pupils understand very simple oral
instructions, information, and stories about their school and
environment. (b). the pupils orally give very simple instructions and
information about their school and environment. (c). the pupils read
aloud and understand very simple written instructions, information,
pictorial texts about their school and environment, and (d). the pupils
write very simple words, expressions and text with correct spelling and
punctuation.
Besides, English in secondary education started being taught in
1968 based on the decree of the Ministry of Education and Culture
No.096/1967. This regulation recommended teaching English as a
compulsory subject in junior and senior high schools. According to the
regulation, the objective of teaching English is to equip the students
with a working knowledge of English which includes reading, listening,
writing, and speaking abilities (Petrus, 2012:6). The standard
competencies of junior-high school students who learn English are

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 3

clearly stated in the regulation of the Ministry of National Education
No.23/2006 namely: (a) the students understand simple oral
interpersonal and transactional, formal and informal, discourses in the
forms of narratives, procedures, descriptions, and reports, in everyday
life contexts. (b). the students express simple oral interpersonal and
transactional, formal and informal, discourse in the forms of narratives,
procedures, descriptions and reports, in everyday life contexts. (c). the
students understand simple written interpersonal and transactional,
formal and informal, discourse in the forms of narratives, procedures,
descriptions and reports, in everyday life contexts. (d). the students
express simple written interpersonal and transactional, formal and
informal, discourse in the forms of narratives, procedures, descriptions
and reports, in everyday life contexts.
In addition, the decree of the Ministry of National Education
No.23/2006 also sets out the standard competencies to be attained by
the students of senior high school who learn English among other
things: (a). the students understand oral interpersonal and
transactional, formal and informal, discourses in the forms of
narratives, descriptions, news items, reports, analytical expositions,
oratory expositions, spoofs, explanations, discussions, and reviews in
everyday life contexts. (b). the students express oral interpersonal and
transactional, formal and informal, discourses in the forms of
narratives, descriptions, news items, reports, analytical expositions,
oratory expositions, spoofs, explanations, discussions, and reviews in
everyday life contexts. (c). the students understand written
interpersonal and transactional, formal and informal, discourses in the
forms of narratives, descriptions, news items, reports, analytical
expositions, oratory expositions, spoofs, explanations, discussions, and
reviews in everyday life contexts. (d). the students express written
interpersonal and transactional, formal and informal, discourses in the
forms of narratives, descriptions, news items, reports, analytical
expositions, oratory expositions, spoofs, explanations, discussions, and
reviews in everyday life contexts. The aforementioned competencies,
attached in the 2006 curriculum for both students of junior and senior
high school, cover the four language skills as well i.e. listening,
speaking, reading, and writing.

4 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

 At the tertiary level of education, English is offered based on the
decree of the Ministry of National Education No.232/U/2000 on the
guideline for tertiary education curriculum and students’ learning
assessment. In paragraph 1 article 7 of the decree, it is obviously stated
that the curriculum for tertiary education which becomes the basis for
the organization of a study program, consists of a core curriculum and
an institutional curriculum. In the core curriculum, English is treated as
the key competence in which English mastery is a compulsory e.g.
English is what must be learnt in an English study program. In English
study program, English is offered in some sub study programs such as
English language teaching, English language studies, and English
literature. In the sub study programs, the students are mainly required
to posses communicative competence, that is, students internalize
knowledge, both of the grammatical rules of a language, and of the rules
for appropriate use in social contexts which are expected to be able to
promote their productive (speaking and writing) and receptive
(listening and reading) skills. The skills are essential to encounter the
pleasure of interacting socially with many different kinds of people all
over the world, to overcome the challenges of many types literature
written in English (e.g. linguistics and research reports, journals, and
articles), and to enhance their teaching skills by studying the
theoretical knowledge and practical approach to teaching English as a
foreign language. Therefore, English must be the basis for attaining
graduate competency (Decree of MONE No.045/U/2002, chapter 3,
verse 2).
The existence of English in an institutional curriculum is stated in
the decree No.045/U/2002, paragraph 2, article 10 specifying that
institutional curriculum could include Indonesian, English, Basic
Natural Science, Philosophy of science, physical education, etc. Besides,
it is also found in the National Education Law No.20/2003, paragraph 2,
article 37 which states that the curriculum in tertiary education should
include religious education, civic education, and languages. Languages
in this case include the Indonesian language, local languages, and
foreign languages, especially English as an international language used
in global communication. As a subject in an institutional curriculum,
English is taught in non-English study programs (such as economics,
law, and engineering) across the institutions where it is learnt to

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 5

support the key competence of a particular study program. In an
institutional curriculum, English is an elective competence to master.

B. The Outcomes of English Language Teaching in

Indonesia
In spite of the fact that English as a foreign language has officially
been taught as a compulsory subject throughout primary, secondary as
well as the tertiary level of education in Indonesia for so many years,
complaints related to the English learning outcomes still exist. Some
researchers who are interested in investigating English language
teaching in Indonesia such as Lowenberg (1991), Lie (2007), Alwasilah,
(2007), Kaharuddin (2014) reported that communicative competence
in English among high school and university graduates is generally low.
Lie (2007:3) even extremely claims that the students’ inability to
communicate effectively as sense of failure in teaching English.
According to Riggenback & Lazaraton (1991: 125), students of
second/foreign language education programs are considered successful
when they can communicate effectively in the language.
Communicating effectively means that the students are able to express
themselves, both verbally and non-verbally, in ways that are
appropriate to cultures and situations.
The researchers mentioned above disclosed not only the negative
outcome but also the causal factors exist behind it. Lie (2007), for
instance, finds out that the low level of competence occurs because
English language teaching methods used in Indonesian public schools
still focus on accuracy not fluency and this has consequently labeled the
students ‘disabled, dyslexic or immature toward English that they have
studied at schools. Besides, Lowenberg (1991: 127-138) describes
some factors that might contribute to the problem of the low level of
English proficiency faced by students learning English in Indonesia. The
first factor is that the problem lies within the curriculum and syllabus.
The second one is the Indonesian classroom situation which is still
generally overcrowded and noisy. The third factor is that there are
many teachers who are still lacking in proficiency in English or still
need more training in language pedagogy.

6 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

 In addition, from a survey, Alwasilah (2007) also found some
weaknesses in the English courses at the college level that make the
students’ communicative competence low: (1). No needs analysis
conducted to find that the course does not meet the students’
expectations. (2). The entrance levels of the students in the class are
relatively heterogeneous. (3). The course is taught by inexperienced
teachers. (4). There is repetition of what has been taught at secondary
schools. (5). There is no selection and classification based on
competencies and students’ needs. (6). There is no coordination among
intra-and inter-institutions.
Another study conducted by Kaharuddin (2014) involving 150
students of English education study program at an Islamic College also
found the students’ inability to cope with problems of improving their
communication skills in English. He stated that the attainment of
communicative competence as a key competence at the English
education study program is still unsatisfactory. In line with the fact, he
also uncovered that the main causal factor which contributed to the low
levels of the students’ competence is the absence of needs analysis in
teaching-learning interactions. The absence of needs analysis can
obviously seen in several aspects i.e. the first, the course objectives
were drawn up based on the course designer’s perceptions and
subjective personal belief rather than an objective assessment of the
learners’ situation and needs. In other words, the needs analysis is
ignored in the process of formulating the courses’ goals and
objectivesformulated.
With regard to formulating the course aims and objectives for a
language program, Richards (2001: 121) suggests that aims and
objectives statements should be derived from information gathered
during a needs analysis. In addition, Brown (1995:71) is of the opinion
as well that the process of needs analysis can generate a tremendous
amount of information that must be sorted and utilized in some way
within the curriculum. One way to use this information is to apply what
has been gathered in the needs analysis for the formulation of program
goals and objectives. Brown further mentions that in a language
program, a needs analysis is very important because it is the basis for
developing a curriculum that will meet the learning needs of a
particular group of students. Once the students’ needs are identified,

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 7

they can facilitate the curriculum designers to state goals and objectives
which, in turn can be used to develop syllabus, teaching materials,
teaching activities, as well as evaluation strategies.
The second, courses syllabus and teaching materials were
developed by neglecting the needs analysis as well. In this case, English
lecturers are given an opportunity to create their own syllabus and
teaching materials creatively to be employed in teaching the students in
the classrooms. Some English lecturers stated that the courses syllabus
were normally designed based on their intuitions about what they
think good for the students to learn in the classroom and not preceded
by a needs analysis. Consequently, the syllabus design is not reliable to
ensure that the course is appropriate, effective, practical, and realistic
to enable the students succeed in both academic and occupational
settings.
Paradowski (2002) considers that the first step of every syllabus
design should be needs analysis, i.e. a set of techniques and procedures
used for obtaining information about the learners and situations and
purposes for which they want to learn the language. Therefore, to
determine what the students need to achieve through the medium of
teaching them English skills e.g. speaking, it is very important to carry
out the needs analysis before designing the course syllabus. With
regard to the statement, Richards (2001: 32) mentions that different
types of students have different language needs and what they are
taught should be restricted to what they need. Similarly, Engelmann
(1993: 3) stated that the curriculum applied by the teachers in the
classroom interaction must be relevant to the students’ needs.
Therefore, ignoring the needs analysis in formulating the course
goals and objectives, designing course syllabus, as well as developing
teaching materials will negatively influence the outcomes of teaching
English, like the low level of English proficiency faced by students
learning English. Based on the research reports, we can at least identify
three major causal problems of the students’ low communicative
competence in learning English i.e. the first: problem associated with
curriculum and syllabus which are designed without needs analysis, the
second: problem related to the overcrowded classrooms, and the third:
problem associated with unqualified teachers.

8 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

 Realizing the negative outcome of English Language Teaching in
Indonesia, there must be some efforts to carry out in order to increase
the learning outcomes and to improve the quality of teaching English at
schools and colleges. One of the efforts is to develop the existing
curriculum by redesigning syllabi used in the institutions into well-
designed courses syllabi for teaching English. As Wello and Nur (1999)
cited in Al-afghani (2011: 57) comment that a well-designed course
syllabus is a necessary component of a successful language program.
Showing how to make a well-designed syllabus for a certain
course is the main purpose of writing this book. What this book
describes is the information about the importance of providing a well-
designed syllabus which must be started from understanding the
students that is an effort to identify what they want to learn, how they
want to learn before deciding materials, activities, assignment in the
course syllabus that enable them to learn effectively. This kind of effort
is normally recognized as a needs analysis. Integrating the students’
needs in a course syllabus will bring many advantages such as it very
useful for assisting teachers in formulating goals and objectives, it can
be used to focus on teaching the most important language items, it can
be very helpful to identify relevant lessons that the students need to
learn, it will be very helpful to decide interesting and motivating
activities to be implemented when learning in the classrooms. With
achievable learning objectives, relevant course contents, interesting
and motivating activities, the quality of learning outcomes will
significantly increase because a well-designed course syllabus basically
contains both a learning contract and a teaching road map which
outline everything the students need to learn and are able to do as the
results of having participated in a course.

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 9

10 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching
 Syllabus Design in English Language Teaching

A. Curriculum and Syllabus

Before discussing more and more about syllabus design in English
language teaching, it is first of all essential to see the difference
between curriculum and syllabus to recognize the main focus of this
book. Some confusion still exists over the distinction between
curriculum and syllabus since the concept of curriculum has changed in
the past years and the terms are used differently in the existing
literature on education of different educational system in some
countries e.g. British vs. US. Therefore, it is necessary to provide a clear
concept of the two terms in this part. From the point of view of the
existing literature on education, many scholars have proposed their
ideas on curriculum and syllabus. For instance, Rodgers (1989) as cited
by Richards (2001:39) states that syllabi prescribe the content to be
covered by a given course from only small part of the total school
program. Curriculum is a far broader concept. Curriculum is all those
activities include not only what pupils learn, but how they learn it, how
teachers help them learn, using what supporting materials, styles and
methods of assessment and in what kind of facilities.
Print (1993:7) also makes a similar distinction between a syllabus
and a curriculum. According to him, curriculum and syllabus are
different. A syllabus is typically a list of content areas which are to be
assed. Sometimes the list is extended to include a number of objectives
and learning activities. However, syllabus is obviously intended to be a
subsection of curriculum. By comparison, a curriculum includes not
only content and a detailed statement of curriculum intent (e.g. aims,

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 11

goals, and objectives), but also the other curriculum elements including
detailed learning activities and evaluation procedures.
From the educational system perspective, the European term
‘syllabus’ and its North American counterpart ‘curriculum’ often seem
to be very close in meaning and sometimes further apart. In a
distinction that is commonly drawn in Britain, ‘syllabus’ refers to the
content or subject matter of an individual subject, whereas ‘curriculum’
refers the total contents to be taught and aims to be realized within
one school or educational system. While in the USA ‘curriculum’ tends
to be considered synonymous with ‘syllabus’ in the British sense. White
(1988: 4) is of the opinion that the terms curriculum and syllabus are
frequently used interchangeably in the US, but in the traditional
context, syllabus commonly refers to ‘the content or the subject matter
of an individual subject’, whereas curriculum usually refers to ‘the
totality of content to be taught within a school or educational system’
(White 1988: 4). In Britain syllabus is placed ‘in a subordinate position
to curriculum’ (White 1988: 4) and concerns itself with ‘a specification
of what units will be taught as distinct from how they will be taught,
which is a matter of methodology’ (Nunan 1988: 6).
According to Nunan (1988), syllabus design involves the selection
and grading of content, whereas methodology is concerned with the
selection and grading of learning tasks and activities. ‘Content’ in this
context refers to ‘a specification of what units will be taught’, whereas
‘methodology’ to ‘how they will be taught’ (Nunan 1988: 6). In a
grammar-oriented syllabus, for example, the main job of the syllabus
designer will be the selection of ‘grammatical, phonological, and
vocabulary items which are then graded according to difficulty and
usefulness’ (Nunan 1988: 11). As is mentioned above, a narrower view
of syllabus design sees it as being concerned with defining and
organizing linguistic content and also with the description of the role of
teachers and teaching materials (White 1988: 3), but not with
methodology, or the description of learning tasks and activities. A
broader view of syllabus design, on the other hand, includes
methodology as an integrated component of syllabus design, as is seen
in the development of the process syllabus, which is to be discussed in
the later section.

12 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

 In this book, curriculum and syllabus are distinguished based on
the differences as outlined above. A syllabus is a specification of what
takes place in the classroom, which usually contains the aims and
contents of teaching and sometimes contains suggestions of
methodology. A curriculum, however, contains (1) general ideas about
the rationale a language program (language learning and language
teaching), (2) detailed information of the goals of a language program
(aims, objectives and targets learning purpose) and (3) implementation
of a program (teaching methodology and evaluation). In other words,
we can say that a syllabus is a part of curriculum elements.
Another important thing to understand here is that as we see the
distinction of the two terms based on a language program context in
Indonesia, syllabus is often used to refer to something similar to a
language course, whereas curriculum refers to a specific document of a
language program developed for a particular purpose containing many
different kinds of courses to attain the stipulated purpose e.g.
department of English education curriculum. Therefore, we can talk
about a listening one syllabus or a speaking two syllabus, but we don’t
have a listening one curriculum or a speaking two curriculum.
Referring to the distinction, we can then assume that syllabus design
seems to be more pedagogical nature, whereas curriculum is a more
planning issue.

B. Syllabus Design Models

In English Language Teaching, syllabus design can be viewed in
two particular types or versions i.e. syllabus design in English for
Specific Purpose (ESP) version and syllabus design in curriculum
development version. All courses in both versions are in need of well-
designed syllabi in order to carry out successful courses. A successful
course normally depends on the planning that precedes it. Even if
courses in ESP or language programs may vary course matter, level,
and methodology, the course need a systematic plan and structure in
order to enable them effectively reach expected instructional goals. A
well planned and structured course is often recognized as a product of
a well designed syllabus. Furthermore, syllabus design can be
understood as a formalized course of study taught by teachers in their

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 13

classrooms as they and their students interact with the intended and
available materials. In addition, Munby (1984: 63), syllabus design is
seen as a matter of specifying the content that needs to be taught and
then organizing it into a teaching syllabus of appropriate learning units.
Following Munby, Maley (1984: 107) points out that syllabus design
encompasses the whole process of designing a language program which
makes effort to examine important aspects such as needs analysis, goal-
setting, and content specification (materials), methodology, assessment
instrument to be used as a guide for both teacher and learner in their
pedagogical interactions. Before a syllabus designer starts producing a
syllabus for a certain course, the designer needs to take into account
several important things as general guidelines of designing syllabus.
Dick (2005) provides some steps to identify i.e. First of all, a
syllabus designer has to decide on what basis he is going to choose the
items to be included in the syllabus and how these items will be
organized. In other words, the designer has to decide the type of the
syllabus design that is going to be employed. Secondly, the teaching
situation has to be analyzed to reveal the conditions under which the
syllabus will be implemented and the available resources, potential
problems, as well as external factors that might force us to depart from
the syllabus at some point must be determined. The last, it is essential
to examine the students as the target group to identify the students’
abilities, learning preferences and needs, which is obviously the basis
for stipulating course objectives. After all, the designer may start
devising the structure of the syllabus and preparing suitable materials.
Besides, before the design product is ready to be applied in the
classroom, it is also necessary to determine the assessment instrument
for the syllabus future revision for the sake of improving and giving
space for any possible changes to the syllabus after implementing the
course syllabus.

1. The Models of Syllabus Design in ESP

It is important to note that a good syllabus design generally
contains some procedural sequences such as needs analysis, content
specification, as well as the syllabus organization. However, the last two
items will certainly not be able to carry out without being preceded by

14 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

a needs analysis which is aimed at identifying who the learners are,
why, what, when, and how they need to learn. The idea of using
learners’ needs in language teaching was originated in the 1970s
resulting from the interest in teaching the students specific kind of
language and communicative skills required for particular
communicative purposes in occupations. (e.g. nurse, engineer, flight
attendant, pilot, biologist, etc). The interest is then led to the emergence
of English for Specific Purpose (ESP) in language teaching program.
Evans and John (1998:3) suggest that the foundation of ESP is the
simple question: Why does this learner need to learn a foreign
language? The answer to this question relates to the learners, the
language required, and the learning context, and thus established
primacy of need in ESP.
However, before moving on discussing the process of needs
analysis in some detail, it is first of all very important to review the
syllabus design models that are commonly used in designing language
program syllabus. The description of the models of syllabus design will
refer to ESP (English for Specific Purposes) approach. This will show us
the importance of needs analysis for the design of syllabus and
language courses as stated in the literature.
a. Munby’s Syllabus Design Model
In 1978, Munby introduced his syllabus design model which
consisted of three main components i.e. the participant, the
communicative needs processor, and profile needs. Munby’s idea on
Communication Needs Processor (CNP) in that design model was quite
influential in syllabus design of ESP. Munby stated that the design of
syllabuses for language courses could only take place after a
preliminary work on the learners’ needs. Hence, he is of the opinion
that The Communicative Needs Processor (CNP) is the heart of the
model. The information that is received from the learner, the
participant, is processed in the CNP in which there are a number of
categories of which results provide us a needs in terms of a description
of what the learner will be able to do with the target language when the
course is over.

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 15

 Figure 1 Munby’s Syllabus Design Model

In his model, Munby (1978:154-189) addresses many questions

about the participant (learner) before deciding communication
activities in the syllabus. To make it clearer, the types of questions
available in this model will briefly be clarified:
 Firstly, the course designer must collect relevant information
about the learners such as the age, sex, nationality, first language
as well as the target language. This information can be used to
recognize the nature of the participants involved. Munby calls this
first parameter as purposive domain.
 The second, the course designer needs to identify the setting - both
physically and psycho-socially. The physical setting refers to the
time and place in which English will be used e.g. when working
(time) in the office (place). On the other hand, the psychosocial has
something to do with different environments in which the target
language will be used. For example, it could be a noisy, demanding
or culturally different environment.
 The third variable is interaction which refers to whom will the
students communicate with and the kind of social relationships

16 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

 exist between them such as superior to subordinate, student to
teacher, student to student, and so forth.
 The forth, the designer needs to determine the instrumentality.
Instrumentality concerns with the medium, mode and channel of
communication for which learners need to be practiced in the
classroom. The medium of communication means the
determination whether the language will be spoken, written or
both. The mode of communication here means monologue, for
example, reading books or a dialogue. The channel of
communication could be face-to-face, telephonically, etc.
 The fifth is to decide the kind of the dialect. The reality shows that
English has many different kinds of dialects depending on where it
is spoken, it is therefore necessary that the learners be taught the
kind dialect which is going to be used in the setting where they
will communicate. Dialects in this case can be varying such as
British or American, African, Indian, Singaporean, regional or non-
regional etc.
 The sixth is to determine the target level. This part of the profile
attempts to range the delicacy, speed, and flexibility of the
communication in English that learners have to cope with, both
receptively and productively. The values are then put on a scale
that ranges from very low to very high target level and provides a
general idea of the dimensions of the learners' target
communication.
 The seventh is to decide the communicative event. For Munby
(1978) the concern here for the designer is what the participant
has to do with the language, either productively or receptively.
This is described in terms of communicative events and these
(communicative events) are subdivided into communicative
activities. He further points out that the results from analyzing an
event into component parts that facilitate sociosemantic or skill
selection (1978:37).
 The eight is what Munby (1978) regards as the communicative
key. This refers to how a learner does the activities comprising an
event. This will indicate what the learners can do to cope with the
communicative activities given in the classroom. From here, the

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 17

 designer may specify the manner in which the participants will
have to do the activities comprising an event, e.g. politely or
impolitely.
 The last is to decide the target level that is to establish level of
linguistic proficiency at the end of the ESP course which might be
different for different skills.
b. Bell’s Syllabus Design Model
Bell (1981: 36) proposes several activities related to language
teaching syllabus design as shown in the following figure.

Figure 2 Bell’s Syllabus Design Model

Bell (1981) observes that language is a social skill which exists so

that individual and group can communicate in their society. In order to
be able to communicate with a particular language, the individual and
the group have needs to be satisfied in terms of knowledge and skill in
the language. He will, therefore, include knowledge of, and ability to use
linguistic and social knowledge to create accurate and appropriate
communicative acts in interacting with others. He then recommends in
pedagogical context that as a syllabus designer is selecting and

18 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

sequencing the course contents, he needs to take into account fluency,
accuracy as well as appropriateness included when teaching skills of a
particular language use. This has to become the main goal of the
syllabus.
In addition, Bell clarifies the idea of designing a language teaching
syllabus as illustrated in figure.3 above. In closer inspection, we can see
that Bell provides two steps on the left branch i.e. analyzing needs,
specifying Skills. These steps are also known the external requirements
expected of the student. Language external requirements are basically
independent variables of the language teaching materials. Thus all
teaching needs to consider how old the learners are, what pre-
knowledge they have, what they can do with the language, what aims
and purposes they have for learning the target language, how much
time they are prepared to devote to that purpose.
The next two steps on the right branch consist of analyzing error
and specifying level. The steps make effort to identify the students’
present competence in the language. Identifying the present
competence is very helpful for making it as the basis to determine
which language system (lexical and grammatical forms) can be selected
to be taught in the classroom. The results of the selection will then lead
to determine learning level such as basic, intermediate, and advanced
which are all absolutely different in the difficulty of the materials level.
Finally at the bottom branch, there are three steps provided i.e.
selecting teaching strategy, designing teaching materials, and
evaluating. Designing teaching materials certainly can only be carried
out after the designer achieves information needed from the left and
the right branches. Then, the designer needs to select the most
appropriate teaching strategy to deliver the stipulated teaching
materials. Evaluation is eventually very important to examine the
outcomes of the learning process. This is done to open opportunity for
the syllabus future revision. These steps are recognized as the activities
to do with educational philosophy.

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 19

2. The Models of Syllabus Design in Language Curriculum
Development
This part deals with the discussion of syllabus design which is
viewed as one of language curriculum development procedures. The
idea can be clarified by taking a look at language curriculum
development theories proposed by Brown (1995) and Richards (2001)
as follows:
a. Brown’s Curriculum Development Model
In 1995, Brown proposed a series of curriculum activities as a
systematic approach to program development. This model is then
adapted into syllabus design model and used for designing language
syllabus by many syllabus designers. Brown’s model consists of six
interrelated curriculum components i.e. needs analysis, specification of
goals and objectives, language testing, developing materials, language
teaching, and evaluation. The six components can be illustrated in the
following figure.

Figure 3 Brown’s Syllabus Design Model

20 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

Carrying out Needs analysis
Brown is of the opinion that developing curriculum should be
initiated by a needs analysis which is carried out to identify the
language forms that the students will likely need to use in the target
language. With needs analysis, teachers will be able to determine and
prioritize educational instruction for students in order to learn English
specifically in the parts they need to succeed in their courses and future
careers.
Formulating aims and objectives
The logical outcome of identifying the needs of a group of language
learners is the specification of goals that is general statements about
what must be accomplished in order to attain the students’ needs. On
the other hand, the objectives are precise statements about what
content or skill the students must master in order to attain a particular
goal.
Developing Language Testing
Test is one of procedures used in conducting evaluation toward
learning and teaching process to uncover if the students have achieved
the competencies as stipulated in courses’ objectives. Besides, test can
also provide valuable information to the lectures whether the learning
process can run effectively or not. At least, three kinds of test categories
can be used to take decisions about learning and teaching namely:
- Placement, test administered to place the students in the level or
group according to their skills and abilities before they start taking
a part in a certain language program.
- Diagnostic, test administered to uncover the students’ ability and
disability during running the language program. This is done to
make improvements of the students’ achievement before the
program ends.
- Achievement, test administered to identify the students’
competence after taking a part in a certain language program.
Brown (1995:21) claims that test, e.g. placement test is important
to administer after determining the curriculum aims and objectives
since the test results will be valuable information for the teachers

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 21

selecting and organizing appropriate teaching materials that fit
together with the students’ competence and level of proficiency.
Developing Materials
Curriculum planners can rationally start dealing with developing
materials after having preliminary sets of needs analysis, objectives,
and test results in hand (Brown, 1995:22). Materials development
basically refers to the production, evaluation and adaptation of
language teaching materials by teachers for their own classrooms
(Tomlinson 2003:1). Materials in this discussion include anything
which can be used to facilitate the learning of a language. They can be
linguistic, visual, auditory or kinesthetic, and they can be represented
in print, through live performance or display, or on cassette, CD Room,
DVD or the internet (Tomlinson 2003:2).
Language teaching
Brown (1995:23) is of the opinion that for curriculum
development purpose, the teachers must be given more freedom than
usual in the classroom to teach as they feel appropriate. Of course, the
teacher and the students should be aware of what the objectives for a
given course are and how the testing will be given at the end of the
course.
Evaluation
Evaluation might be defined as the systematic collection and
analysis of all relevant information necessary to promote the
improvement of curriculum and to assess its effectiveness within the
context of the particular institution involved (Brown, 1995:24).
Program evaluation has to be viewed as the ongoing process of
information gathering, analysis and synthesis, the entire purpose of
which is to constantly improve each element of a curriculum. Therefore,
evaluation is not only used to assess how effective a program run, but
also can be utilized to gather information in the process of (1).
Developing objectives, (2). Writing and using the test, (3). Adopting,
developing or adapting materials and (4) teaching.

22 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

b. Richard’s Curriculum Development Model
Another language curriculum development theory was proposed
by Richards in 2001. He proposed a model of curriculum development
which could also be adapted into syllabus design procedures in
language program development. Richard’s model is focused on needs
analysis, situational analysis, planning learning outcomes (aims and
objectives), course organization, selecting and preparing teaching
materials, providing for effective teaching and evaluation (Richard,
2001:41). He further claims that these curriculum elements must be
viewed as forming a network of interacting system. The illustration of
the model can be seen in the figure below:

Figure 4 Richards’ model of curriculum development

The following discussion deals with presenting detailed

descriptions on each of the elements of curriculum development in
language teaching as proposed by Richards.
Needs analysis
The term needs tend to be interpreted differently by some people.
The people frequently use the term to refer to wants, desires, demands,
expectations, motivations, lacks, constraints, and requirements
(Brindley 1984 cited in Richards 2002:54). In language teaching

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 23

perspective, Richards (2002:54) proposes a description on what needs
are. He points out that needs can be described in term of ‘linguistic
deficiency’, that is, as describing the difference between what a learner
can presently do in a language and what he or she should be able to do.
Situational Analysis
A language program from a particular curriculum is carried out in
particular contexts or situations. Each context for a curriculum contains
factors that can potentially facilitate or hinder the success of a
curriculum implementation (Richards 2002:90). It is therefore very
important to identify these factors with a process called situational
analysis. Print (1999: 110) defines situational analysis as the process of
examining the context for which a curriculum is to be develop and the
application of that analysis to curriculum planning.
In addition, Richards (2002:91) states that situation analysis is an
analysis of factors in the context of a planned or present curriculum
project that is made in order to assess their potential impact on the
project. Situational analysis thus serves to identify potential obstacles
to implementing a curriculum project and factors that needed to be
considered when planning the parameters of a project. According to
Richards, information gained through situation analysis functions to
complement the information gathered during needs analysis. Even, it is
sometimes considered as a dimension of needs analysis.
Planning goals and learning outcomes
In this part, we will discuss another important aspect of
curriculum development that is determining the goals and the
outcomes of the curriculum. Richards (2002:112) proposes several key
assumptions about the reasons for stipulating goals in curriculum
development i.e. People are generally motivated to pursue specific
goals, the use of goals in teaching improves the effectiveness of
teaching and learning, a program will be effective to the extent that its
goals are sound and clearly described. In language program, curriculum
developers mostly describe goals in terms of aims and objectives.
According to Prints (1999:124), aims state what is to be hopefully
achieved by the curriculum. In addition, Richards (2002: 120) also
states that an aim refers to a statement of a general change that a

24 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

program seeks to bring about in learners. The aim statements are
normally developed from information collected during a needs analysis.
Aims are very general statements of the goals of a program. In order to
give more precise focus to program goals, aims are often accompanied
by statements of more specific purposes. These are recognized as
objectives. Richards (2002:122) is of the opinion that an objective
refers to a statement of specific changes a program seeks to bring about
and results from an analysis of the aim into its different component.
Course planning and syllabus design
Traditionally, syllabus design in language teaching used to be
considered as the starting point in planning a language program rather
than viewed as an activity occurs in the process of curriculum
development. As an integrated part of curriculum development,
syllabus design (i.e. selecting and organizing the course content) must
be based on the aims and objectives that have previously been
formulated from needs analysis. Richards (2002:145) suggest a number
of different levels of designing syllabus such as developing a course
rationale, describing entry and exit level, choosing course content,
sequencing course content, planning the course structure as well as
preparing the scope and sequence plan.
Providing for effective teaching
The focus of this part is how quality teaching can be achieved in a
language program. Richards (2002:198) states that quality teaching is
achieved not only as a consequence of how well teachers teach but
through creating contexts and work environment that can facilitate
good teaching. Therefore, the attainment of quality teaching must
consider some determinant factors such as institutional factor, teacher
factors, teaching factors, and learner factors.
Evaluation
In language program perspective, Richard (2002:286) specifically
defines evaluation as to collect information about different aspects of
language program in order to understand how the program works. This
can be done by analyzing and examining several contexts in the
language program such as the goals attainment, the process of

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 25

implementing the syllabus and the course contents, and how effective
the language program respond the learners’ needs.

26 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

 Needs Analysis in Syllabus Design

From the previous discussion on syllabus design literature, we can

obviously see how the scholars put needs analysis as the most
important activity in initiating syllabus design process. The next part of
discussion will specifically clarify needs analysis and some systematic
procedures for conducting a needs analysis.

A. Needs Analysis in Theoretical Perspectives

A Needs Analysis (NA) possesses a crucial role in the process of
designing language course syllabus, whether in English for Specific
Purposes (ESP) or general English course. The centrality of NA has been
acknowledged by several scholars and authors in pedagogical practices
e.g. Munby, 1978; Hutchinson and Waters, 1987; Berwick, 1989; Tarone
and Yule, 1989; Robinson, 1991; West, 1994; Allison et al. (1994);
Seedhouse, 1995; Jordan, 1997; Dudley-Evans and St. John, 1998; Iwai
et al. 1999; Hamp-Lyons, 2001; Finney, [Link] it was previously
stated in the above section, a syllabus compilation is necessarily
preceded by a needs analysis, as it ‘provides a basis for setting goals
and objectives’ (Nunan and Lamb 1996: 27). Thus, the NA concept, in
this section, will explore its definition and emergence in ESP and in
language teaching in terms of language program development.

1. The concept of Needs Analysis in ESP

According to West (1997: 68) in his article, the term ‘needs
analysis’ was firstly used in the 1920s. However, at the time, it only

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 27

referred to determining the needs of the general language learners,
who studied English that was formulated not for the sake of learning
and knowing English. Since the term was not used to represent what
the students’ need to learn in English language learning at the time, that
it was considered irrelevant and did not linger. The return of needs
analysis in language teaching context is closely related to the
emergence of ESP movement in the 1970s. According to Hutchinson
and Waters (1987:7), the 1970s as for most linguists is considered as
the revolution phase in linguistics. As the demand was growing for
English courses from demand of language usage (traditional) to
demand of language use (communicative), influential new ideas began
to emerge in the study of language.
Traditional approaches of language teaching had been to describe
the rules of English usage that is the grammar. However,
communicative approach shift attention away from defining the formal
features of language usage to discovering the ways in which language is
actually used in real communication. Advocates of communicative
approach also recognized that many learners needed English in order
to use it in specific communicative purposes such as occupational or
educational purposes. The idea was simple, the advocates found out
that language in fact varies from one situation of use to another; it
should be possible to determine the features of specific situations and
then make these features the basis of the learners’ course.
From the idea, they started thinking that it would be more efficient
to teach the students the specific kind of language and communicative
skills required for particular roles, (e.g. that of nurse, engineer, flight
attendant, pilot, biologist, etc) rather than just to concentrate on more
general English. This led to the emergence of English for Specific
Purpose (ESP) movement. Evans and John (1998:3) suggest that the
foundation of ESP is the simple question: Why does this learner need to
learn a foreign language? The answer to this question relates to the
learners, the language required, and the learning context, and thus
established primacy of need in ESP. Need is defined by the reasons for
which the student is learning English. In order to determine the kinds
of communication learners would need to master for occupational or
educational particular settings, ESP uses the discipline of need analysis

28 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

such as the use of observation, surveys, interviews, situation analysis,
and analysis of language samples identified in different settings.
English For Specific Purpose (ESP) soon began to appear the
language needs specialization in language learning such as English for
Academic Purpose (EAP) specifically designed for academicians like
university students, English for Occupational purposes (EOP)
specifically designed for kinds of job professions such as nurses,
engineers, restaurant staff, doctors, hotel staffs, airline pilots, and so
forth which recommended for specialized language programs based on
an analysis of learners’ need. Since then the scope of the concept has
evolved and expanded. Consequently, the idea of what is meant by
needs analysis has also gradually changed.
Since at the beginning, needs analysis was introduced into
language teaching through ESP movement, therefore many concepts
associated with needs analysis are found in ESP context. The most
widely referred model that reflects the earlier concept of needs analysis
is Munby’s Communicative Needs Processor. As previously explained in
the previous section that in order to explore the learners’ needs in
language learning, Munby uses nine components aimed at collecting as
much information as possible to answer the questions such as topic,
participants, medium, etc. With the assistance of the collected
information it is then possible to establish the required language skills,
language functions and language forms of any group of learners to be
used in designing language syllabus. Therefore, the CNP procedures
view needs analysis by using language-centered approach which
defines needs analysis as the ability to comprehend and produce the
linguistic features of the target situation. However, Hutchinson and
Water criticize it by stating that there is more to needs than this
(Hutchinson and Water 1987:54).
In defining needs analysis, Hutchinson and Water (1987: 55-58)
first of all make a basic distinction between target needs and learning
needs. Target needs refer to what the learner needs to do in the target
situation. On the other hand, learning needs cover all the learners need
to do in order to learn. According to them, ‘target needs’ is an umbrella
term to identify necessities, lacks, and wants. Necessities: It is the type
of need due to the demands of the target situation that is what the

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 29

learner has to know in order to function in the target situation e.g. a
businessman needs to understand business letters, to communicate
effectively at sales conference etc. To develop his ability to
communicate in the situations, he presumably needs to know the
linguistic features such as discourse, function, structure, and lexical
commonly used in the situations. Lacks: Identifying necessity is not
enough to describe the needs of particular group of learners. It is also
important to recognize what the learners know already, so that we can
decide which of the necessities the learner lacks. In other words, the
target proficiency needs matching against the existing proficiency of
learners. The gap identified between the two can be referred to as the
learners’ lacks. Wants: Identifying necessities and lacks of the learners
seems to be an objective sense. This effort must be adapted with the
learners’ actual motivation in the learning process which may not be
ignored. So, taking into account the learners’ motivation in language
learning process is subjective view of needs which is also necessary to
employ in the preparation of teaching materials and methodology. A
number of ways can be used to gather information on target needs. The
most frequently used are questionnaires, interviews, observation,
gathering text, informal consultation with learners etc. Based on the
discussion as previously presented, it is known that target situation
analysis basically makes effort to uncover what knowledge and abilities
the learners require being able to perform the required degree of
competence. Learning needs analysis, on the other side, tries to disclose
how the learners need to learn the knowledge and the skills
The other ESP practitioners, Dudley-Evans and St John (1998: 121-
126), also propose their concept on needs analysis by stating that needs
analysis is the process of establishing the what and how of a course
which covers there major aims i.e. the first, needs analysis aims to
know learners as people, as language users and as language learners.
The second, needs analysis study also aims to know how language
learning and skills learning can be maximized for a given learner group.
The third, needs analysis study aims to know the target situations and
learning environment so that data can appropriately be interpreted. To
describe how to attain the three aims, Dudley-Evans and St. John (1998:
125) introduced their needs analysis theoretical frameworks which can
be illustrated in the figure below:

30 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

 Figure 5 Dudley-Evan and St. John needs analysis framework

The above figure illustrates a model of ESP needs analysis which is

focused on (1) learners’ professional information, (2) Learners’
personal information, (3) Learners’ language information about the
target situations, (4) learners’ lacks, (5) learners’ needs from course,
(6) language learning needs, (7) Communication information in the
target situation, and (8) environmental information. The aspects of
language needs analysis are obviously defined by Dudley-Evans and St
John (1998: 125) as follows:
a. Professional information about the students refers to the tasks
and activities students are/will be using English for-target
situation analysis (TSA) and objectives needs.
b. Personal information about the students refers to factors which
may affect the way they learn such as previous learning
experiences, reasons for attending the course and expectations of
it, attitude to English-wants, means subjective needs.
c. English language information about the students refers to what
their current skills and language use. This is also known as present

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 31

 situation analysis (PSA) which could allow us to assess the
students’ lacks since PSA determines strengths and weakness in
language skills.
d. The students’ lacks refers to the gap between the students present
proficiency and the ateget proficiency that the students will
achieve.
e. Language learning information refers to the effective ways of
learning skills and language in (D)-learning needs-Learning
Situation Analysis (LSA)
f. Knowledge of how language and skills are used in target situation-
linguistic analysis, discourse analysis and genre analysis.
g. Students’ needs from the course refer to what the students want to
achieve from the course.
h. Environmental situation refers to information about the
environment in which the course will take place.

2. The Concept of Needs Analysis in Language Program

Development
In recent language teaching perspective, the term needs tend to be
interpreted differently. Some people frequently use the term to refer to
wants, desires, demands, expectations, motivations, lacks, constraints,
and requirements. In the case of language programs, needs will be
language related. According to Brown (1995: 35), needs analysis is an
integral part of systematic curriculum building which can serve as the
basis for stating goals and objectives, developing tests, materials,
teaching activities and evaluation strategies. Therefore, he considers
needs analysis as an activity carried out to gather information that will
serve as the basis for developing a curriculum that will meet the
learning needs of a particular group of students within the context of
particular institutions that influence the learning and teaching situation
(Brown, 1995: 36). That, the concept of ‘needs’ in language program
development setting, is not only related to what the learners’ needs in
learning but also related to identifying the needs of teaching
institutions, user-institutions graduates (e.g. companies, business

32 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

enterprises, banking etc.) as well as society’s needs in a larger
spectrum.
Needs analysis which is seen as an integral part of the systems
approach to language program development, is also demonstrated by
Richads (2001). He is of the opinion that needs analysis is procedures
used to collect information about learners’ needs as a basis for
curriculum development which is carried out for some different
purposes (Richards, 2001:51) [Link] find out what language skills a
learner needs in order to perform a particular role, such as university
student, sales manager, tour guide etc, to help determine if an existing
course adequately addresses the needs of potential students, to
determine which students from a group are the most in need of training
in particular language skills, to identify a change of direction that
people in a reference group feel is important, to identify a gap between
what students are able to do and what they need to be able to do, to
collect information about a particular problem learners are
experiencing. For the reason, Richards suggests that the first step in
conducting a needs analysis in to decide exactly what its purposes are.
However, Richards (2001: 55) then emphasizes that needs in language
curriculum is not a matter of the language skills that the learners need
to survive in an English dominant society (students’ language needs),
but seeks to enable them to critically examine and become active in
shaping their own roles in it (language use in society).
The concept that will be used in this study is meant to combine the
best features of the two concepts of needs analysis by including
elements of needs analysis from ESP and language curriculum
development. This concept is a working concept stipulated to facilitate
the process of needs assessment as an integral part of language syllabus
design. In this study, the phrase ‘needs analysis’ refers to a systematic
process of gathering information on the learners’ necessaries, lacks,
and wants on the basis of subjective (the learners) and objective (the
course designers, teachers, graduates) views to satisfy the language
learning requirements of students for designing a communicative
competence-based syllabus of speaking one course at the English
Department of STAIN Parepare.

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 33

B. The Systematic Procedures of Needs Analysis
This part will present the discussion of systematic procedures in
carrying out a needs analysis proposed by a prominent language
teaching practitioners i.e. Brown (1995), in which the procedures are
going to be adapted in administering a needs analysis for this study. In
order to perform needs analysis for language development program,
Brown (1995: 36) proposes three basic systematic steps to follow i.e.
making basic decision about the needs analysis, gathering information,
using the information.

1. Making Decision About the Needs Analysis

There are some fundamental decisions that a curriculum/syllabus
designer needs to think about before any needs analysis can take place
that is to decide: who will involve in the needs analysis, what types of
information must be collected, and which points of view should be
presented. Let’s discuss the fundamental decision in detail. According
to Brown (1995: 37), four categories of people can be involved in a
needs analysis i.e. the first is the target group: the people about whom
information will ultimately gathered e.g. the students in a program, the
teachers, the administrators, as well as the graduates. The second is the
audience: people who will eventually be required to act upon the
analysis such as teachers, teacher aides, program administrators or
supervisors in the bureaucracy above the language program. The third
is the needs analysts: persons who are responsible to carry out the
needs analysis. The fourth is resource group: people who serve as
sources of information about the target group for example: parents,
future employers or professors from the students’ content course.
After deciding the people who will involve in the needs analysis,
the next step is to decide what type of information needed in the needs
analysis. In relation to this, it is necessary to consider four divergent
philosophies commonly exist in needs analysis since such philosophies
will affect the types of information will be gathered. The first is the
discrepancy philosophy: information which views needs as differences
or discrepancies between a desired performance from the students and
what they are actually doing. The second is the democratic philosophy:

34 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

a type of information which views needs as any change that is desired
by a majority of the group involved (the learning most desired by the
chosen group) such as the students, the teachers, and the
administrators. The third is the analytic philosophy: a kind of
information which views needs as survey from existing literatures such
as research reports on second language acquisition. The fourth is
diagnostic philosophy: a type of information which views needs as the
most important language skills necessary for students to survive in the
language they learn (Stufflebeam, 1977 cited in Brown, 1995: 38).
The selection of philosophies will certainly affect the type of
information gathered in the needs analysis. The tendency is the listing
of needs may grow to unmanageable proportions that make the
curriculum designer needs to decide which points of view should be
taken. Then the needs analyst needs to sort all the information and
narrow the scope of their investigation. In order to limit the types of
information needed, the needs analyst can use the three basic
dichotomies of needs proposed by Brown (1995: 40) i.e. the first is
situation needs vs. language needs. Situation needs normally refer to
any administrative, financial, logistical, manpower, pedagogic, cultural,
personal or other factor that may give an impact on the program. On
the other hand, language needs refer to language competence of
students, reasons for studying English, their current abilities etc. The
second is objective needs vs. subjective needs. Objective needs are the
needs identified from observable data about the situation, the learners,
and the language that the students finally acquire. While, subjective
needs refer to wants, desires, and expectation. The third is linguistic
content vs. learning process. Linguistic content refers to the type of
language needs that the students need to learn spelled out in linguistic
terms such as phoneme, morpheme, grammatical structure, utterances,
functions, notions, discourse markers etc. In addition, learning process
can refers to needs in affective domains such as motivation, self-esteem
etc.

2. Gathering Information
In this step, the curriculum/syllabus planners must delineate the
areas of information intended to be collected by first of all deciding the

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 35

philosophy of the needs analysis and then restricting the types of
information from different types of questions, types of instruments and
characteristics of procedures. First of all, let’s discuss the process of
gathering information through selecting types of questions. According
to Rossett (1982), there are five questions categories can be addressed
for a needs analysis to identify problems, priorities, abilities, attitudes,
as well as solutions.
- The first is questions to identify problems: questions of this type
are given to identify the problems that are being experienced by
the people (students, teachers, and administrators) in the target
group. For example; what problems have you been having with
your English when you talk to native speakers? (Addressed to the
students).
- The second is questions of priority: questions of this type
commonly investigate what topics, language uses, and skills are
considered the most important to be learnt by the target group.
For example: questions that are given to find out whether reading,
writing, listening, speaking or grammar skills are considered the
most essential.
- The third is questions of ability: questions which focus on the
students themselves normally related to the abilities of students at
entry, like questions in pre-test used to measure the overall
language proficiency of the students or to diagnose their specific
weakness.
- The fourth is questions of attitudes: questions that are made to
uncover information about participants’ feelings and attitudes
toward elements of the program. For example: do you feel that
students learn English better and more efficient by studying
grammar points, language functions or some combination of the
two.
- The fifth is questions of solution: questions which elicit the ideas
for solution to perceive problems in terms of what changes might
bring about compromise and resolution.
After considering the types of questions that will be used in a
needs analysis, a needs analyst must determine the most appropriate

36 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

instruments to gather needs analysis information. Brown (1995: 45)
proposes six categories of instrumentation namely: existing
information, tests, observations, interviews, meetings, as well as
questionnaires. Existing information refers to any procedures
employed to gain information by utilizing any available preexisting
information such as literature review that is library sources in the form
of books, journals, and newsletters used to find information about
similar program and about the learning needs of their students. Tests
refer to any procedures aimed at measuring the general ability level of
the students through proficiency, placement, diagnosis, or achievement
tests. Observations refer to category of instrumentation which is
carried out by watching a target group and recording the behavior that
occur. Interviews refer to a type of instrumentation used to obtain
information by addressing open-ended questions orally to individuals
or groups which allow for gathering responses and views personally or
collectively. Meetings refer to procedure to gather information by
discussing differences in opinions for reaching a consensus from the
participants. The last is questionnaires which refer to a type of
procedure to gain information by providing a series of questions in
writing given to a large number of students in order to provide their
responses about a language program.
Besides, when using any procedures for collecting needs analysis
information, the needs analyst is required to take into account three
characteristics of any selected procedures. The three characteristics
cover reliability, validity, as well as usability. Reliability here means
information consistency gathered from different types of procedures to
measure the same object. Any procedures such as questionnaires, must
obtain the same result or at least very similar when the procedures are
used by the other analyst. Validity is defined as the degree to measure
something that should be measured and not something different. For
example, as a questionnaire is aimed at measuring the level of students’
motivation, so all the questions provided must be in line with the
required information. Finally, the concept of usability refers to any
selected procedure which are practical to use and relatively easy to
administer, to score, and to interpret. Clearly, reliability, validity, and
usability are interrelated and should probably be considered to be
equally important (Brown, 1995: 53).

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 37

3. Using the Information
A needs analysis process can generate much valuable information
to be utilized within curriculum or syllabus to first of all state goals and
objectives, which in turn can also be used as the basis for developing
tests, materials, teaching activities and evaluation strategies. In other
words, we can say that needs analysis will form a rational basis for all
other components of curriculum and syllabus design for a particular
language program. Therefore, this study is mainly aimed at presenting
information of how a needs analysis results used in curriculum or
syllabus design. Conclusively, the discussion of this investigation will
describe how to administer a needs analysis from the aspects of making
basic decision about the needs analysis and the process of gathering
information for future syllabus design of a language program.

38 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

 Communicative Competence and Syllabus Design

When reviewing the recent literature on teaching English as a

second or foreign language, the term ‘communicative competence’ is
everywhere. It’s hardly possible to pick up a journal, a newsletter, a
modern language textbook, or even a syllabus design that doesn’t
emphasize the communicative nature of language. In this discussion,
the writer will specifically looks at how the concept ‘Communicative
Competence’ was firstly introduced and incorporated into language
teaching-learning context including into the design of syllabus for a
language teaching program.

A. Communicative Competence in English Language

Teaching
The 1970s was labeled as new awareness of communicative
approach which emerged as a reaction to traditional teaching
approaches. The communicative approach was considered as a result of
the work of British applied linguists who called into question the
theoretical assumption underlying the British language teaching
tradition ‘Situational Language Teaching’. As an alternative approach to
language teaching, The British applied linguists promoted another
fundamental dimension of language ‘the functional and communicative
potential of language because the current approach was incapable of
demonstrating communicative use of language at the time. The linguists
saw the need to focus in language teaching on communicative
proficiency rather than mere on mastery of structures.

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 39

 In addition, the communicative approach emergence was also seen
as a positive response to the sorts of criticism the prominent American
linguist Noam Chomsky against the prevalent Audio-lingual method
and its theoretical views in the mid 1960s. Chomsky stated that such a
learning theory could not regarded as a model of how human learn
language due to the fact that much of human language use is not
imitated behavior but it is created anew from underlying knowledge of
abstract rules derived from innate aspect of mind and human process
experience through language. Chomsky further claimed that sentences
in human languages are not learnt by imitation and repetition but
‘generated’ from the learner’s underlying ‘competence’ (Richards and
Rodgers 1999:59).
Chomsky’s view of competence is also recognized as linguistic
competence which deals with abstract abilities speakers posses that
enable them to produce grammatically correct sentences in language
(knowledge of structure of language). The speakers use the abstract
abilities (knowledge) to match sound and meaning that allows them to
use and understand a language. The ability to produce and comprehend
sentences in language is called linguistic performance.
The concept of communicative competence coined by Dell Hymes
in 1972 in order to contrast the theory of competence introduced by
Chomsky in 1965. Hymes rejected Chomsky’s view of linguistic theory
by stating that Comsky’s view was sterile. He further held that linguistic
theory needed to be seen as part of a more general theory
incorporating communication and culture. Here, Hymes felt that there
are rules of language that are neglected in Chomsky’s theory, as native
speakers know more than just grammatical competence. Hymes with
tradition of sociolinguistics had a broader view of the term which
included not only grammatical competence but also sociolinguistic and
contextual competence. As for Hymes, the notion of communicative
competence is the underlying knowledge a speaker has of the rules of
grammar including phonology, orthography, syntax, lexicon, and
semantics, and the rules for their use in socially appropriate
circumstances. Therefore, competence in language should be viewed as
the knowledge of rules of grammar, and performance, as well as the
way the rules are used.

40 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

 Hymes further defined the concept of communicative competence
as knowledge and ability that a speaker needed for language use in a
speech community. So in Hymes’ view, a person who acquires
communicative competence acquires both the tacit knowledge and the
ability to use the language. Since then, it is said that the verbal part of
communicative competence comprises all the four major skills i.e.
listening, reading, speaking, and writing. It is important to highlight this
to avoid misunderstanding that communicative competence only refers
to the ability to speak. It is actually both productive and receptive.
In presenting the clarity of the Communicative competence
concept, Widdowson (1983) as cited in Bagaric (2007:95) made a
distinction between competence and capacity in defining the
communicative competence in which he defined communicative
competence as the knowledge of linguistic and sociolinguistic
conventions, while capacity was defined as procedural. Procedural
referred to the ability to use knowledge as means of creating meaning
in language. He further stated that ability is not a component of
competence and never turns into competence. The ability plays a role
as an active force for creativity in language.
The following concept of communicative competence is derived
from Richards’ proposal. In explaining communicative competence, he
first compares it with the concept of grammatical competence.
Grammatical competence refers to the knowledge people have of a
language that accounts for their ability to produces sentences in a
language. It consist of the knowledge of the building block of sentences
e.g. parts of speech, tenses, phrases, clauses, sentence patterns and how
sentences are formed. It is undeniable that grammatical competence is
an important dimension of language learning. However, many people
are good at mastering the grammar rules but still poor to use the
language for meaningful communication. According to Richards,
grammatical competence will be the latter capacity which is
understood by the term communicative competence. In addition, he
claims that communicative competence includes the following aspects
of language knowledge:
a. Knowledge of how to use language for a range of different
purposes and functions.

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 41

b. Knowledge of how to vary the use of language according to the
setting and the participants e.g. knowing when to use formal and
informal speech or when to use language appropriately for written
as opposed to spoken communication.
c. Knowledge of how to produce and understand different types of
texts such as narratives, reports,
d. Knowledge of how to maintain communication despite having
limitation in one’s language knowledge e.g. through using different
kinds of communication strategies.
Another linguistic theory which complements Hymes’ view of
communicative competence favored in Communicative Approach is
Michael Canale and Merril Swain. In ‘Theoretical base of communicative
approach to second language teaching and testing’ (1980), Canale and
Swain, as cited in Richards and Rodgers (1999:71) identified four
components of communicative competence namely:
a. Grammatical competence. This competence refers to what
Chomsky calls as linguistic competence. This includes knowledge
of phonology, orthography, vocabulary, word formation and
sentence formation.
b. Sociolinguistic competence. It refers to an understanding of social
context in which communication takes place, role relationships,
the shared information of the participants, and the communicative
purposes of the interaction.
c. Discourse competence. This refers to the learners’ mastery of
understanding and producing texts in the modes of listening,
speaking, reading and writing. It deals with cohesion and
coherence in different types of texts.
d. Strategic competence. It refers to the coping strategies that
communicators employ to initiate, terminate, maintain, repair, and
redirect communication. For example: request for repetition,
clarification, slower speech etc.
According to Richards and Rodgers (1999:71), at the level of
language theory, Communicative approach has a rich theoretical base.

42 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

Some of the characters of this communicative view of language as
follow:
a. Language is a system for expression of meaning.
b. The primary function to language is for interaction and
communication.
c. The structure of language reflects its functional and
communicative uses
d. The primary units of language are not merely its grammatical and
structural features, but categories of functional and
communicative meaning as exemplified in discourse.
Competence had been the concept introduced by Chomsky into
discussion of language use either second or foreign language learning in
the early 1970s and developed by Hymes, into a ‘communicative
competence’. Hence, it is said that communicative competence was
developed within sociolinguistics as sub discipline of linguistics.
Communicative competence soon spread around the world as the most
recommended goal of language teaching. Consequently, language
teachers and teaching institutions all around the world immediately
began rethinking and redesigning their teaching, syllabus, and
classroom materials based on communicative approach. This had given
a great influence to language teaching methodology. The result was
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). In this study,
Communicative competence is understood as students’ internalized
knowledge of vocabulary as well as the grammatical rules of a language
and the rules for appropriate use in social context which are expected
to be able to promote their oral communication skills (speaking and
listening).

B. Syllabus Design Frameworks

In language program, a syllabus not only presents important
elements used to undergo a language course, but also provides the
basis for instructional focus and content for language teaching. In
choosing a specific type of syllabus framework, planners are commonly
influenced by some factors such as knowledge and beliefs about the
subject area, research and theory of language, common practice based

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 43

on experience in developing language programs, trend approaches to
syllabus design.
Richards (2002:152-164) claims that movements in language
teaching approaches and methods have given contributions to syllabus
frameworks for language program. Traditional approaches to language
teaching (e.g. grammar translation, direct method, aural-oral method)
have led to the formulation of traditional syllabus such as:
a. Grammatical (or structural) syllabus.
This syllabus is developed around grammatical items which are
used to facilitate learning a new language. The range of productive
grammatical items is expected to develop the learners’ basic
communicative skills.
b. Lexical syllabus.
This one identifies a target vocabulary to be taught according to
the learning level such as:
Elementary level: 1.000 words
Low Intermediate level: 1.500 words
Intermediate level: 2.000 words
Upper intermediate level: 2.500 words
Advanced level; 3.000 words
Besides, the emergence of communicative approach in 1970s is
then led to a reexamination of traditional syllabuses into the
development of communicative syllabuses which has developed many
different syllabus frameworks claimed to be versions of communicative
syllabus such as:
a. Functional syllabus.
This type is developed around language communicative functions
such as requesting, complaining, suggesting, agreeing.
b. Situational syllabus.
This one is organized based on the language needed for different
situation such as at the air port, at the hotel etc. A situation in this
context refers to a setting in which particular communicative acts

44 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

 typically occur in which the learners will be expected to use the
language in that setting (Richards 2002:156).
c. Topical or content based syllabus.
This framework is designed around themes, topics. The topics or
contents in this syllabus are used as vehicles for the presentation
of language to facilitate the four skills integration. The example of
this syllabus is built around the following themes:
Television Modern architecture
Religion Technology
Advertising Ecology
Drugs Nuclear energy
d. Competency based syllabus.
This kind of syllabus framework is organized based on a
specification of the competencies learners are expected to master
in relation to specific situations and activities. Competencies in
this context are described as a description of the essential skills,
knowledge, and attitudes required for effective performance of
particular tasks and activities (Richards 2002:159). This syllabus
is normally designed in social survival and work oriented language
programs. For example, competencies related to the topic of
telephoning are:
- Read and dial telephone number
- Identify oneself on the telephone when answering and calling
- Request to speak to someone
- Respond to request to hold
- Respond to offer to take message.
e. Skills syllabus
This syllabus framework is designed around the different
underlying abilities involved in using a language for purposes such
as reading, writing, listening or speaking. Teaching language
through skills is developed from the belief that learning a complex
activity e.g. listening to a lecture involves mastery of s number
individual skills or micro skills that together make up the activity

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 45

 (Richards 2002:159). Here is the example of skills that relate to
different kind of language use:
Listening : Recognizing key information
Using course markers to identify the flow of discourse
Following rapid speech
Speaking : Recognizing turn taking signals
Introducing a topic
Using communication strategies
f. Task based syllabus
This type of syllabus is organized around tasks that students have
to perform in the target language. In this context, task refers to an
activity which is carried out using the following principles:
- Activity drives the second language acquisition process.
- Grammar teaching is not central with this approach because
learners will acquire grammar as a product of carrying out
tasks.
- Task is motivating for learners and engages them in
meaningful communication.
Richards (2002:162) claims that there are two kinds of tasks
proposed for syllabus design basis namely:
1. Pedagogical tasks, these tasks are developed based on SLA
theory and designed to trigger second language learning
process and strategies such as: jigsaw tasks (combining
different pieces of information to form a whole), information
gap tasks (negotiating information to complete an activity),
problem solving tasks (searching for solution to a problem),
decision-making tasks (choosing the most appropriate
outcome by discussing and negotiating several possible
outcomes for a problem), opinion exchange tasks (discussing a
topic for exchanging ideas without reaching agreement).
2. Real world tasks, tasks designed for practicing or rehearsing
the activities that are found to be important in a need analysis
ad that turn to be important and useful in the real world.

46 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

g. Text based syllabus
This syllabus framework is organized around text and samples of
extended discourse. Text in this case refers to a specific context
which has been identified by the students such as in work place or
a university. For example; spoken texts identified for a group of
engineers in work place are: spoken instructions to field staff,
presentation of report findings at meetings and telephone
negotiations with contractors.
h. An integrated syllabus
This syllabus framework combines elements of different types of
syllabuses. For example, this syllabus might be organized
grammatically at the first level and then the grammar presented
functionally in order to link this to skill to text, and to topic.

C. Communicative Competence as an Alternative

Approach to Syllabus Design in ELT
As people learn a foreign language e.g. English, they will commonly
involve in the process of learning four kinds of skill namely listening,
reading, speaking, and writing. These skills are required to master to be
able to communicate both in spoken and written discourses. As for the
learners, speaking skill is the most preferred skill among the other. As
Richards (2002: 201) states, a large percentage of the world’s language
learners study English in order to develop proficiency in speaking.
Many research reports show that people use speaking for a variety of
different purposes. Some people speak, in conversation for instance, to
make social contact with people, to establish rapport (understanding),
or to build social relationships between two people or more. Some
engage in discussion with someone, on the other hand, to seek or to
express opinions, to persuade someone about something, or to clarify
information. In some situations, some speak to give instructions or to
get things done. The others use speaking to describe things, to complain
about people’s behavior, to make polite request, or to entertain people
with jokes and anecdotes (Richards and Renandya, 2002: 201).

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 47

 Those different purposes of speaking imply knowledge of language
rules and contexts in which speech occurs. From linguistics theoretical
perspective, Ellis (1986:164) says that learners must possess two types
of foreign language (FL) knowledge to make them work on perceiving
and producing messages in the foreign language. The knowledge covers
declarative knowledge (knowing what) and procedural knowledge
(knowing how). Declarative knowledge refers to the internalized FL
rules and memorized chunks of language which can also mean the
learners’ internalized knowledge of grammar and vocabulary. In
addition, procedural knowledge contains the strategies and procedures
employed by the learners to process FL data for use. The process
involved in using FL data consists of production and reception
strategies which tightly have something to do with functional and social
aspects of the foreign language.
Realizing the need of the fore mentioned knowledge, Shumin
(2002:204) claims that learning to speak a foreign language requires
more than knowing its grammatical and semantic rules, learners must
also acquire knowledge of how native speakers use the language in the
context of structured interpersonal exchange, in which many factors
interact. Falling back on the ideas of speaking concept as previously
described, it is essential that the learners no longer recognize speaking
as to say something by using voice (Oxford Dictionary, 2005: 414),
more than that, it must be described as to say something from feeling
and mind expressed through the sequence of sound (pronunciation),
vocabularies, phrases and sentences (grammar) that contain meaning
(pragmatics and semantics) according to the functional and social
conventions in a certain language. Therefore, all the learners must
achieve the components, in their process learning a foreign language
especially English, as stipulated in the concept of speaking i.e. learning
grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, and learning how to use them
functionally and socially. Possessing those things will shape the
students’ communicative competence.
The term communicative competence is comprised of two words,
the combination of communicative and competence which means
‘competence to communicate’. As for some linguists, the central word
in the communicative competence is the word ‘competence’. Since
Chomsky proposed and defined the concept of ‘competence’ in 1970s,

48 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

many linguists have giver their valuable contribution to the further
development of the concept communicative competence. Hence, it is
essential to overview some linguists’ views about communicative
competence for the sake of providing a clearer concept of the term
‘communicative competence’ that this syllabus design refers to.

Linguists Definition of Communicative competence

Chomsky Abstract abilities speakers posses that enable them to
(1965) produce grammatically correct sentences in language
(knowledge of structure of language).
Dell Hymes The underlying knowledge a speaker has of the rules of
(1971) grammar including phonology, orthography, syntax,
lexicon, and semantics, and the rules for their use in
socially appropriate circumstances.
Savignon The ability of classroom language learners to interact
(1971) with other speakers, to make meaning as distinct from
their ability to recite dialogues or perform on discrete
point tests of grammatical knowledge.
Canale and Communicative competence as a synthesis of
Swain knowledge of grammatical principles, knowledge of
(1980) how to use language in social context in order to fulfill
communicative functions, and knowledge of how to
combine utterances and communicative functions with
respect to discourse principles and skill needed for
communication.
Widdowson Communicative competence as the knowledge of
(1983) linguistic and sociolinguistic conventions and the
ability to use knowledge as means of creating meaning
in language.
Ellis Communicative competence in the knowledge that
(1994) users of a language have internalized to enable them to
understand and produce messages in the language.
Bagaric A competent language user should possess not only
(2007) knowledge about language but also the ability and skill
to activate that knowledge in a communicative event

From the very start of ‘communcativie competence’ emergence in

linguistics, the term has been continously changed and adapted to the

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 49

context where it is used. Despite the linguists, as exemplified above,
have made effort to introduce their different views on communicative
competence, their definitions still remain to be very close in meaning in
which communicative competence is defined as knowledge, abilities as
well as skills for communication. On the basis of the linguists’ empirical
research and theories on communicative competence, the concept of
communicative competence for this research is then defined that
language speakers who have communicative competence are those who
not only possess knowledge of language (i.e. phonology, morphology,
syntax, and semantic) but also the ability and skill to activate that
knowledge functionally and socially in communicative events. The
concept of communicative competence above can be illustrated as a
schematic representation of communicative competence as follows:
which has been used to design a course syllabus namely speaking for
general communication or also known as speaking one syllabus.

Figure 6 Schematic representation of communicative competence

for syllabus design

50 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

D. Genesis of Communicative Competence-Based
Syllabus Design
It has already been revealed in the previous disicussion of this
book that English learning outcomes in Indonesia is generally still low.
The first factor that might contribute to the problem of the low level of
English proficiency faced by students learning English is the problem
lies within the curriculum and syllabus. Some English curriculums
implemented for teaching English do not provide a standard course
design in terms of syllabus framework selection, and teaching materials
employed in teaching English courses. As an illustration, let’s take a
look at the following syllabus which is used for teaching speaking
course one at the English education study program of a state college in
Indonesia:

SILABUS MATA KULIAH

Mata kuliah : Speaking I
Program studi : Pendidikan bahasa Inggris (PBI)
Jurusan : Tarbiyah
Semester : I (Satu)
Bobot : 2 SKS
Elemen kompetensi : Mata Kuliah Keahlian Berkarya (MKB)
Standar kompetensi : Mahasiswa mampu berbahasa Inggris
dengan percakapan dasar.

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 51

Sumber bahan:
a. LAN Sulsel: English for SPAMA
b. Shirley Brod et. al: Crossroads
c. Deena [Link]: The Culture Puzzle
(Source: Kaharuddin, 2014:234)

In teaching speaking course one at the English education study

program of the college, English lecturers are required to teach
freshmen on the basis of the spaking course one syllabus as illustrated
above. However, the syllabus design is considered unreliable,
inappropriate, ineffective, unpractical, and unrealistic to enable the

52 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

students succeed in developing their speaing skills because it is not
sufficiently designed to meet the conditions of standard procedures for
designing a good syllabus and has resulted many shortcomings i.e.
a. The course aim is not stated clearly because it is not formulated
based on information gathered during a needs analysis.
b. The course contents are not developed besed on the aims of the
course.
c. The course contents do not reflect the students’ needs and level.
d. The course content are not well-sequenced and well-organized
since they are not sequenced by using standard criteria e.g. simple
to complex, chronology etc.
e. The course contents are not mapped by using appropriate syllabus
frameworks.
f. Methodology employed in the syllabus is not selected based on the
students’ learning preferences and learning styles.
Consequently, the syllabus insufficiently provides the knowledge
of linguistic that the students need as well as the appropriate
methodology for learning which eventually unable to help the students
to develop their communicative competence that is an ability to
produce grammatically correct, logically connected sentences and
appropriately spoken language in the real social contexts.
Owing to the fact, there is a dire need to propose a reliable
syllabus design for English Language Teaching (ELT). The syllabus
should systematically be developed by using standard and formal
procedures of syllabus design which can assist English teachers or
syllabus designers to design a well-designed syllabus.
Besides, for so many years, various models of syllabus design have
been widely presented in the domain of language teaching literature for
the development of teaching ESP and language program. The discussion
in part two reveals that in ESP context, Munby’s (1978) communicative
syllabus and Bell’s (1983) syllabus design models are broadly
considered as the basic approaches to syllabus design in which the
teaching content is matched to the requirements of the learners. While
in language program context, syllabus design is seen as a sub
component of the planning phase of curriculum development as we can

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 53

see in Brown’s (1995) and Richard’s (2001) curriculum development
components.
However, the syllabus design approaches still have a number of
shortcomings. For example, the Munby approach has received criticism
for being too mechanistic and paying too little attention to the
perceptions of the learners (Nunan, 1988:20). Besides, Brown’s (1995)
theory on curriculum development has shortcoming as well in which
the needs analysis entirely focuses on the language types and language
skills necessary for their academic success (Brown. 1995:37) and
ignores situation needs (e.g. personal factors that affect what people
want to learn, how they want to learn it), the theory is still felt
confusing and unpractical especially for teachers who are lack of
experiences in developing curriculum and designing syllabus since the
elements in the curriculum development process are described too
general and theoretical without providing specific illustration on how
to apaply the elements in developing a certain language skill in a
language program.
In addition, Richards’ (2001) curriculum development model also
has two major shortcomings i.e. the first, some elements of the
curriculum development are not adequately explained which can result
into the difficulties in implementing the elements when developing a
curriculum e.g. in needs analysis; there is no clear explanation about
formal procedures of administering a needs analysis, no specification
about types of information which are normally required in needs
analysis of a language program. In evaluation task, there is no specific
explanation about what sort of evaluation should be used in curriculum
developments among the three kinds of evaluations i.e. formative,
illuminative or summative evaluation whether teachers should use one
of them or use them all. The second, the theory is still felt confusing and
unpractical to follow especially for teachers who are lack of experiences
in developing curriculum since the elements in the curriculum
development process are described too general and theoretical without
providing specific illustration on how to apply the elements in
developing a certain language skill in a language program such as
reading, writing. Listening, and speaking.

54 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

 Realizing the shortcomings of the pre-existing syllabus design
models, this book introduces two things i.e. a syllabus design which
here is called communicative competence-based syllabus design and a
framework of communicative competence-based syllabus. A number of
theories (e.g. communicative competence theories, curriculum
development theories, and summative evaluation theory) have been
integrated to develop this syllabus design model and its framework.
The innovative design has been used to compile a comprehensive,
practical, and reliable syllabus as well as a systematic syllabus
framework for speaking course one at the English education study
program of tertiary level of education.

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 55

56 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching
 Communicative Competence-Based Syllabus Design

A. The Procedures of Communicative Competence-

Based Syllabus
In order to understand “Communicative Competence-Based
Syllabus”in detail, it is necessary to describe the procedures of
designing the syllabus which are identified by unifying components of
curriculum developments proposed by Richards (2001). The
unification comes up with three main phases which can be illustrated in
the following figure:

Figure 7 The phases of Communicative Competence-Based

syllbus design

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 57

1. Step One (Preliminary Phase)
In this phase, the writer first of all has to do literature review to be
able to start administering a preliminary study called needs analysis
(NA). NA is carried out to identify the syllabus contents by examining
what sorts of linguistic needs that the students have in order to be
taken into account when determining the language components (e.g.
grammar, vocabulary, function, skill, etc) to emphasis in the speaking
course one syllabus. In addition, this NA also covers Situational
Analysis (SA) to disclose what sort of learning needs (e.g. learning
preference and learning styles) that the students require being taken
into account in selecting teaching techniques and strategies when
developing the course materials in the later speaking course one
syllabus design. All information associated with both the students’
linguistic needs and learning needs is analyzed and then drawn up to
identify the overall needs required for the syllabus and course contents.
The information of the overall needs is then used to formulate the aims
and the objectives of the course design.

2. Step Two (Development Phase)

Development phase is a systematic process which can be started
after defining and formulating the numerous concepts of aims and
objectives as the syllabus intent. Tomlinson (2007:1) claims that
development involves the designing, developing and implementing
language teaching materials. In regard to this study, the concept of
development illustrates the dimensions of designing the syllabus
prototype, preparing teaching materials based on the syllabus
prototype, reviewing the materials before trying the out in classrooms.

3. Step Three (Review Phase)

This refers to a process of measuring the effect of teaching the
course contents to the targeted groups for the purpose of evaluating
then revising the contents. In evaluating the information associated
with the results of implementing the syllabus and the instructional
designs, the writer used summative evaluation. Summative evaluation,
in this study, refers to checking of what has been learned at a specific

58 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

point in time, such as at the end of a lesson, unit, or course. It is based
on cumulative learning experiences, tests for achievement, and mastery
of specific performance objectives. The evaluation procedures were
adopted from Kirkpatrick’s (1996) four level model of summative
evaluation which can be illustrated as follows:

Figure 8 Kirkpatrick’s (1996) four level model of

summative evaluation

According to Kirkpatrick (1996) summative evaluation can be carried

out in four main levels namely:
Level 1: Reactions
The first level of evaluation is conducted by assessing the students’
reactions or attitudes toward the learning experiences. The most
appropriate instrument to this level is questionnaire to find out
whether or not the students like learning from the given instructions.
Level 2: Learning
This level is aimed at measuring what the students have learnt from the
presented materials by comparing their performance before and after
receiving the instructions. Giving pre-test and post-test is considered to

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 59

be very effective to demonstrate that learning has occurred as a result
of the instruction.
Level 3: Behavior
In this level of evaluation, teachers need to be involved in determining
that the students really can use all they have learnt from the materials.
To evaluate this, the lectures review the learning outcomes by judging
the students’ performance associated with the instruction.
Questionnaires were also given to the teachers to elicit the information.
Level 4: Results
After carrying out the three previous levels of evaluation, the
effectiveness of this communicative competence-based syllabus design
for speaking course one (independent variable) can be measured in two
aspects i.e. the effect of the instructional design on the students’
achievement in which the syllabus increases their communicative
competence (dependant variable) based on the students’ responses,
pre-test and post-test results, as well as the lectures’ perceptions
toward the students’ performance. As the evaluation level comes to
decide whether or not the results of the previous evaluation procedures
indicate that the training program has achieved its objectives, the
materials were revised and transformed into an in use syllabus design
which was ready to be implemented in the real educational context.
After going through the review phase, the syllabus design has been a
communicative competence-based syllabus design for students of
undergraduate level.

B. Implications of Implementing The Communicative

Competence-Based Syllabus Procedures
Richard’s curriculum development stages have been adapted and
simplified into three main stages of designing a course syllabus namely:
preliminary, implementation, as well as review phases. In the
preliminary phase, the needs of the students in learning English for
designing the course yllabus ere analyzed and identified. In the
development stage, the course syllabus framework and the teaching
materials are designed, developed, as well as implemented to find out

60 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

the effect of the syllabus contents on the students communicative
competence. In the review phase the syllabus prototype is evaluated by
using summative evaluation adopted from Kirkpatrick’s (1996)
summative evaluation model. The implementation of the overall
procedures have contributed two important things i.e. An idea to the
formulation of an innovative model of syllabus design in English
Language Teaching which is here called Communicative Competence-
Based Syllabus Design and a framework of communicative competence-
based syllabus.

1. Communicative Competence-Based Syllabus Design Model

The model is formulated as a simple three-phase design that
effectively covers most components within a logical and structured
approach to syllabus design and curriculum developmentIn the
following, the writers outline the main components of each of the three
major phases in order to make it as a more applicable methodology to
design a course syllabus.

Figure 9 A methodology for syllabus design in this study

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 61

 The figure above indicates that each phase has a set of inputs
which must be carried out and then analyzed to produce the output
from the phase. The output from one phase serves as one of the inputs
to the later phase. Nevertheless, the process is not totally linear as the
chart suggests that a highly interactive interaction would probably take
place between development and review phase for revisions.

STAGE 1 : PRELIMINARY PHASE

The main input to preliminary phase is a needs analysis as an essential
activity used to gather necessary information for a syllabus content and
methodology. This study suggests taking into account three aspects
before carrying out a needs analysis for a course syllabus design in i.e.
deciding participants, identifying linguistic needs information, and
identifying learning needs information.
a. Participants. These refer to people who are involved in the needs
analysis as sources of information. This can involve students as the
target group, English lecturers, as well as graduates who already
work.
b. Linguistic needs. These needs refer to gathering information
associated with types of language components, functions, as well
as topics which are necessary to be available in the syllabus
design. The needs are found out through the identification of the
students’ learning ability and learning priority. Learning ability
gives information about the students’ entry level in the language
areas such as in vocabulary, pronunciation, and grammar. This
information can be used to decide which language component
needs more attention in the syllabus design. Besides, learning
priority provides information about the most preferred materials
in syllabus design. This information is very useful to decide the
most appropriate topics for the students to learn.
c. Learning needs. The information gathered from learning needs
can be used to determine the most appropriate methodology
(selection of learning tasks and activities) in the syllabus design.
Learning needs can be identified by analyzing the students’
learning problems and learning attitudes. Learning problem gives

62 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

 information about the problems that the learners are facing in
learning a subject. From the information, teachers are required
helping their students to reduce the effects of the identified
problems and to maximize their learning efforts by selecting the
most appropriate approaches, methods, and strategies in teaching
as the possible solutions to overcome the problems. In addition,
learning attitude provides information about how well the
students like studying in a program. To describe this, it is first of
all very important to identify the students’ learning preferences
and learning styles. Learning preference refers to the way the
students tend to learn best. On the other hand, learning styles
refer to the educational conditions under which the students are
most likely to learn. Therefore, learning preferences are concerned
with what learners need to learn in order to learn (task or
activities), and learning styles are associated with how they need
to learn in order to learn (teaching methods).
The outputs from stage 1 are:
a. The needs inventory gathered from the results of linguistic and
learning needs analysis.
b. The formulation of course goals and objectives derived from the
needs inventory.

STAGE 2 : DEVELOPMENT PHASE

The inputs to stage 2 are the course aims and objectives which are
formulated from the needs inventory in stage 1. In syllabus design
context, the terms ‘aims’ refer to general statements or ‘signposts’
reflecting the underlying ideology of the curriculum. In addition,
objectives are more specific than aims. They break down aims into
smaller units of learning, and typically describe ‘learning outcomes’ in
terms of what a learner will be able to do by the end of each unit. The
course aims and objectives formulations will enable syllabus designer
to undergo three major activities in this phase i.e. selecting syllabus
contents, designing syllabus and developing teaching materials.
a. Selecting syllabus content. This activity is carried out to select the
major topics and to determine the order in which the topics will be

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 63

 presented in the classroom. Information from linguistic needs and
consultation with teachers can be used to obtain an initial list of
course topics that would be included in syllabus content.
b. Designing Syllabus. This activity is conducted to map the logical
sequence of course structure into a syllabus design as a
fundamental instrument for teaching effectively. Therefore,
designing syllabus needs selecting a syllabus framework e.g.
topical or content-based syllabus, structural syllabus, competency-
based syllabus or a mixed syllabus since it combines two or more
types of syllabus frameworks.
c. Developing Teaching Materials. This activity refers to mapping out
the course contents in terms of sections or instructional blocks by
using the syllabus framework as a guideline. Instructional block
represents the instructional focus of the course which may be very
specific in a single lesson or more general in a unit of work
consisting of several lessons. The representation of the
instructional block can be initially made by writing a lesson plan
before composing the instructional materials of text book for the
course. A lesson plan is certainly required since it serves as a road
map for a class session.
The outputs from stage 2 are:
a. A syllabus framework which is used as the guideline to write the
lesson plans for a course.
b. Lesson plans for the course in all units and topics.
c. A set of instructional materials which normally concerned with
both lessons to be learnt and skills or abilities to be developed.
Before implementing the teaching materials, they need to be reviewed
by the experts. The review is carried out to make sure that the teaching
materials have been well developed and ready to use according to the
experts’ judgments.

STAGE 3 : REVIEW PHASE

The inputs to stage 3 are a syllabus framework, lesson plans, and a
set of teaching materials which are going to be implemented and

64 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

evaluated in this phase. Review Phase is associated with the process of
describing the outcomes of trying out the developed course content
(e.g. syllabus and teaching materials). Therefore, this phase must be
initiated by teaching the instructional materials in the classroom,
record the students’ progress, and evaluate the outcomes of learning.
Teaching the materials refers to an activity conducted by a teacher
to facilitate the learning of a language, to inform learners about the
language, to provide experience of the language in use, and to help the
learners to discover the language for themselves. Teaching the
instructional materials is aimed at examining the effect of the
instructional materials on increasing the targeted students’ skills in
language. To find out the effects of teaching the instructional materials,
this design uses a summative evaluation.
Summative evaluation refers to checking of what has been learned
at a specific point in time i.e. at the end of a unit, or course. It is based
on cumulative learning experiences, tests for achievement, and mastery
of specific performance objectives. The evaluation procedures are
adapted from Kirkpatrick’s (1996) model of summative evaluation i.e.
students’ reactions, pre-test and post-test, and teachers’ perceptions.
a. Students’ Reactions. This first level of evaluation is conducted by
assessing the students’ reactions or attitudes after learning with
the teaching materials. The instruments used in this level can be
questionnaires with likert scale and open questions.
b. Learning (Pre-test and Post-test). This second level of
evaluation is aimed at measuring what the students have learnt
from the presented materials by comparing their performance
before and after receiving the instructions. Giving test is
considered to be very effective to demonstrate that learning has
occurred as a result of the instruction. Therefore, the effectiveness
of the course content try out can be measured by comparing the
students’ gain score in the test given at the beginning of the class
(pre-test) with their score in the test given at the end (post-test).
c. Teachers’ perceptions. This type of evaluation requires teachers
to be involved in determining that the students really can use all
they have learnt from the given teaching materials. The teachers
take a part to review the learning outcomes by judging the

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 65

 students’ performance and skills after teaching the students with
the teaching materials.
After going through the review phase, the syllabus design and the
developed teaching materials can be transformed into an in use
syllabus design and teaching materials which are ready for being
implemented in the real educational context. Therefore, this syllabus
design proposal can be used as a formal and real example to design
syllabus and to develop course contents for English courses such as
speaking, listening, reading, and writing courses. This recommendation
is given for some reasons:
- This design covers needs analysis and situation analysis that are
very helpful to gain information about the students’ linguistic
needs and learning needs.
- The framework of this design is clear, simple, and practical to
follow especially for teachers who are lack of experiences in
developing curriculum since the elements in the design process
are described simply and practically with specific illustration on
how to apply the elements in developing a certain language skill in
a language program.
- The elements of the syllabus design are adequately explained
which can ease teachers to implement the elements when
designing a syllabus e.g. in needs analysis; there is an obvious
explanation about formal procedures of administering a needs
analysis, specification about types of information which are
normally required in needs analysis of a language program. In
evaluation task, there is specific explanation about what sort of
evaluation should be used in the design among the three kinds of
evaluations i.e. formative, illuminative or summative evaluation.

2. A Framework for Communicative Competence-Based Syllabus

As stated earlier that the implementation of the overall procedures
of communicative competence-based syllabus has also contributed an
idea of formulating a framework for communicative competence-based
syllabus. The framework illustrates the key elements which which
underlie the syllabus content.

66 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

 Figure 10 A framework for communicative competence-based
syllabus

As we see figure 10, the point of departure for the syllabus is

everyday real-life topics. In order to create learning opportunities
based on the real-life topics, the syllabus must contain three main
pedagocical procedures i.e.
- Providing language knowledge
In this procedure, teachers prepare the learners with specific
knowledge of language namely; vocabulary, pronunciation, and
grammar which compose communicative ability for later

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 67

 communication. Afterwards, a set of activities to make the
students able to internalize and to practice the knowledge (skill
getting methodology) must be given such as explaining and
illustrating the meanings of vocabulary asscociated with a certain
real-life topic, getting the students listen to the audio recording of
native English speaker for pronunciation drill, and providing
opportunities to practice the vocabulary within specific language
grammar rules in pair practice. These activities may be viewed as
skill getting methodology.
- Giving opportunity to use the language knowledge
This type of procedure basically makes effort to bridge the gab
between the students’ knowledge of linguistic forms and their
potential functional and social use. Therefore, functional activity
and social interaction activity should be given. Functional activity
is aimed at equipping students with the ability to function the
linguistic forms in conversation. On the other hand, the social
interaction activity is intended to give the students stimulus for
communication to take a part in a role play in wchich the students
must interact one aother using a certain situation provided by the
teachers. These activities are also recognized as skill using
methodology.
- Reviewing learning outcomes
This procedure is aimed at reviewing the students’ achievement in
communicative competence by giving them an interactive game
e.g. “Search the Handout’s Owner” or SHO game. Through this
game, the students will interact socially and have opportunities to
express their knowledge of language in a particular topic, ability to
use the language knowledge functionally in communication.
Conclusively, the organizational structures of the syllabus
framework have been used to develop instructional materials. The
instructional materials are planned by units in which each unit
represents a topic and consists of three lessons. The lessons are
identified as lesson A: Skill Getting, lesson B: Skill Using, and lesson C:
Review. Lesson A: Skill Getting is aimed at preparing and equipping the
students with specific elements of knowledge which compose
communicative ability for later communication. In addition, lesson B:

68 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

Skill Using makes effort to bridge the gap between the students’
knowledge of linguistic forms and the ability to talk about a particular
topic. On the other hand, lesson C: Review is aimed at measuring how
much the students have learnt in a certain given unit (see a unit sample
on the appendices page).

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 69

70 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching
 Methodology of Designing Communicative
Competence-Based Syllabus

In this part, methodology used to design Communicative

Competence Based syllabus is going to be clarified. The implementation
of the methodology is initiated by questioning two things i.e.
1. What are the students’ needs in learning English according to the
students, the teachers as well as the graduates?
2. How is the English course syllabus designed and developed based
on the needs analysis?
The two questions above are figured out by carrying out the three
main phases of designing communicative competence-based syllabus as
stated in the previous part. Besides, it is also necessary to specify here
that the implementation of the methodology has ever been carried out
through an intensive research to design a communicative competence-
based syllabus for speaking course one at the English Education Study
Program in a tertiary level of education. Hence, for the sake of
providing clear explanations on the methodology, samples derived
from the research are presented as well.

A. The Preliminary Phase

This phase is begun by conducting needs analysis which is carried
out by adopting Brown’s (1995) needs analysis systematic steps i.e. the
first step is to make decision in needs analysis, the second step is to
gather information, the third step is to use the information for
designing syllabus.

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 71

1. Making Decisions in a Needs Analysis
In this first step, certain fundamental decisions in needs analysis
need drawing up i.e. to involve students (target group), lecturers
(audience), as well as graduates (resource group) as the participants in
the needs analysis, and to decide the types of information required for
this investigation which are identified in two categories i.e. linguistic
needs and learning needs. The first category is the information
associated with the linguistics needs in speaking course e.g. grammar,
vocabulary, pronunciation, topics, functions, etc. the second category is
the information associated with the learning needs in speaking course
such as learning preference, appropriate teaching methods. In general,
the structure of the instrument of needs analysis for communicative
competence-based syllabus design can be illustrated as follows:

- Introduction
This section consists of two parts i.e. Part I: Personal information
and Part II: The overview of the present need of speaking course
one. However, descriptions about the main purpose of giving the
needs analysis instrument, what the searchers expect from giving
the instrument to the participant, and how the researchers want
the participants fill in the instruments are essential to provide to
precede questions in the two parts.
Part I: Personal information
This section gives the respondents opportunity to provide some
information about themselves such as Respondent Number, Sex,
Age, and Present Occupation.
Part II: The overview of the present need of speaking course
one
This section deals with the general perceptions of the participants
(the students, the lecturers and the graduates) about the need of
speaking subject availability in the English education study
program , the importance of speaking skill for students of English
education study program as the purposes of learning and using
English specifically speaking skill.

72 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

- The students’ Linguistic Needs
This section deals with the effort of identifying infromation about
the students’ learning ability and priority through information
provided by all participants.
Part I : the overview of the students’ learning ability
In terms of learning ability, the students are required to measure
their own speaking skills e.g. vocabulary, pronunciation, and
grammar by filling in the needs analysis questionnaire.
Part II : the overview of the students’ learning priority
This part deals with determining the students’ learning priority by
analyzing the participants’ perceptions on the importance level of
a certain language element and its sub skills such as vocabulary,
pronunciation, and grammar to be provided in a course syllabus.

- The students’ Learning needs

Learning needs basically refers to the students' learning patterns
and styles or learning preferences which are described by their
attitude toward current educational activities. Learning needs also
gives an illustration on how the students should learn well which
in turn can assist language teachers to give the most appropriate
teaching methods, strategies when teaching the students that the
students can finally achieve better learning outcomes. Therefore,
the students learning needs can be described in two different
categories i.e. the students’ learning problems and learning
attitudes.
Part I: the overview of the students’ learning problems
Learning problem refers to the difficulties that the learners are
facing in learning a certain course such as psychological problems,
linguistic resources, insufficient knowledge of a certain topic etc.

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 73

 Part II: the overview of the students’ learning attitudes
Learning preferences
Learning attitude refers to the students’ feeling on learning
something which is normally affected by the students’ learning
style. Therefore, when a teaching process does not match the
students’ learning styles, it will result in learning attitudes that
decrease the students’ effort, creativity in the learning process.
The whole types of information are then formulated in the form of
questions required to be available in needs analysis questionnaires and
distributed to all participants involved in a particular research. In order
to obtain in-depth information on the needs and to cross check the data
gathered from the questionnaires, interview is also important to be
used. The two types of instruments provide detailed information on the
perceptions and expectations of the students, the lecturers, and the
graduates about the needs that should be available in the design of
speaking course one [Link] the information category
available in the structure of the needs analysis, the needs analysis
questionnaire and the list of questions of the interview are then
exemplified as follows.

74 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

Questionnaire of Needs Analysis for Students

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 75

sgdhlsakgd

76 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 77
78 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching
Guiding Questions for Semi-Structured Interview

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 79

2. Gathering Information of the Needs Analysis
In gathering information step, the writers use the needs analysis
questionnaires containing questions which have been formulated
earlier. The questions are initiated by introductory questions and
adapted questions from Rossett (1982) types of questions i.e. linguistic
and learning needs used for assessing whole needs of the target group.
The categories of questions are:
- Introduction (personal information and perceptions on the need of
speaking course availability).
- Linguistic needs (abilities: students’ level of proficiency, priorities:
language items that considered the most important to learn).
- Learning needs (problems: weakness and difficulties in learning),
and attitudes: participants’ feeling toward elements of programs).
The data gathered from the introductory questions are used for
showing the participants’ situations (e.g. gender and age), and
perceptions on the importance of Speaking Course One availability in
English Education Study Program. In addition, both types of
information, linguistic needs and learning needs are analyzed into three
categories identified as “the proficiency level”, “the importance level”,
as well as “the frequency level”. The proficiency score, the importance
score, and the frequency score of linguistic needs and learning needs
are derived by giving each category scores from one to four as indicated
below:

80 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

To calculate frequency, the number of respondents is multiplied with
its scores and then divided by the number of respondents in all
categories. On the other hand, the mean was calculated by:
a. Multiplying the score category with frequency
b. Adding up all the scores
c. Dividing by the population
Hence, the formula for calculating the mean from a frequency table is:

The mean score of the respondents’ perceptions and expectations

toward students’ needs of speaking English were then described by
using the following scale:
1 refers to 0 – 1.50
2 refers to 1.15 – 2.50
3 refers to 2.51 – 3.50
4 refers to 3.51 – 4.00
To clarify the data presentation, some data were analyzed by using
diagrams to see the distribution of the level of frequency and level of
importance using language skills.
The overall data are then analyzed to recognize the needs inventory of
the target group in language learning which is then used as the basis for
formulating aims and objectives of learning and designing speaking
course one syllabus. To clarify the process of implementing this step,
take a look at the following examples taken from Kaharuddin’s research
on Syllabus Design in 2014:

a. Gathering Information on the Section of

Introduction
a.1. Participants’ Personal Information
This study took place at the English Education Study Program of a
tertiary level of education by involving the academic community of

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 81

STAIN Parepare as populations which were categorized into students,
teachers, and graduates. The populations were then purposively
selected according to the following distributions:
a. Students: 116 students. They were classified in three groups i.e.
56 students from the first (They were taking speaking course one
at the time), 20 students from the third, 20 students from the fifth
and 20 students from the seventh semester (They had taken
speaking course one) in previous academic years.
b. Lecturers of speaking and other English skills courses; two
lecturers of speaking subjects and eight lecturers of other English
subjects (i.e. two lecturers of reading subjects, two lecturers of
writing subject, two lecturers of listening, one lecturer of
vocabulary and pronunciation, and one lecturer of grammar and
structure) were taken apart in this study.
c. Graduates. Eleven graduates involved as respondents in this
study. They all graduated from English education study program
of the institution and have worked as English teachers at schools,
college, as well as English Language Center (i.e. three graduates
work at STAIN Parepare, two graduates work at Muhammadiyah
University of Parepare, one graduate works at SMU Negeri 5
Parepare, one graduate works at MAN 1 Parepare, one graduate
works at SMU Negeri 1 Tana Toraja, and three graduates work at
Metro English Course Parepare.
In short, there were 137 participants in all. The distribution of the
whole participants was then summed up according to their background
characteristics in terms of gender and age, Therefore, the data of
participants’ information can be presented not only in the form of
tables but also in the form of charts. However, tables are preferred to
be used as the examples for this section.

82 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

 Table 1. The distribution of the respondents by genders

Source: Kaharuddin (2014: 85)

In order to present a clearer description about the participants’

distribution, it is important to provide an analysis by giving comments
to the table. The comments can be exemplified this way:
Specifically, the above table shows that the student participants
(N=116) were composed of 30 males and 86 females. On the other
hand, among the lecturer participants (N=10) half of them were
male (5 out of 10) and the other half were female (5 out of 10 as
well), in addition, the graduate participants consisted of 4 males
and 7 females. In sum, the number of female respondents is larger
than male respondents among the subjects as a whole i.e. 98 out of
137 (Kaharuddin, 2014:85).
Beside the background characteristic of gender, it is also necessary to
see how the three groups of participants are illustrated according to the
age distribution as exemplified in the table below.

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 83

 Table 2. The distribution of the respondents by age

Source: Kaharuddin (2014: 86)

The analysis of such data as presented in table 2 can be exemplified as

follows:
Data in table 2 reveals that the majority of the respondents in
this study were ranged from 18 to 20 in their age (65.7%).
According to Engin (2009: 1035), those aged 18 and 20 were
slightly keen and quite eager to learn a foreign language. That
eagerness generates motivation that will help foreign language
learners to learn the target language more easily. The motivation
of the learners determines how ready and eager they are to get
more information and to increase their ability to understand,
write, and speak the foreign language (Kaharuddin, 2014: 86).
Having provided the data of the participants’ personal information to
show their situations in terms of gender and age), the next data in this
introductory part are the participants’ perceptions about Speaking
Course availability in English Education Study Program.

a.2. Participants’ Perceptions about Speaking Course at the English

Education Study Program
In order to gain data in this part, three questions are given to the
participants. The questions mainly explore about the participants’

84 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

perceptions about the need of speaking course availability, the
purposes of learning speaking skills, as well the future use of the
speaking skills (the participants’ most preferred interlocutor in the
future). The data gained from the three questions are recognized and
analyzed this way:
- Perceptions of the Need of Speaking Course Availability
English skills such as speaking, listening, writing as well as reading
are essential for those who are studying English in English major since
the major requires the students using English both in spoken and
written in going through academic years in colleges or universities.
Among the skills, speaking skill is the most preferred skill as for the
learners. As Richards (2008: 19) states, the mastery of speaking skills
in English is a priority for many second-language or foreign-language
learners in which, the learners frequently evaluate their success in
language learning as well as the effectiveness of their English course on
the basis of how much they feel they have improved in their spoken
language proficiency. Data about the importance of speaking skills are
also given by the participants of this study. Most of the participants
recognized that Speaking course is very important to be offered at the
English Study Program as illustrated in the following table.

Table 3. Level of the importance of speaking subject

Source: Kaharuddin (2014: 104)

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 85

After the data are presented as exemplified in the table above, an
analysis is then required for the data description. This can be done by
giving comments to the data presentation, providing relevant
supporting information from the participants’ statements during the
interview, as well as drawing conclusions. The comments, supporting
information, as well as conclusion about the table above can be
exemplified as follows:
Comments:
Information on the importance of speaking subject presented in
table.07 shows that most of the respondents (100 out of 137 or
73%) selected ‘very important’ to describe the importance of
speaking subject given at the English education study program and
the total average score is 3.71 which describes that the speaking
subject is in the very important level. (Kaharuddin, 2014: 104)
Supporting information:
It seems that the respondents realized the necessity of speaking
subject materials for two reasons (based on the students’
perspective). The first, the students reckon that instructional
materials available in speaking subject provide stimuli for
speaking practice as indicated by the following students in the
interview:
Student 9)
Materi di dalam mata kuliah speaking dapat merangsang kami
untuk berlatih berbicara karena dalam materi yang disajikan,
dosen menyiapkan beragam kegiatan yang mendorong kami untuk
berbicara sesuai dengan kemampuan kami. (Materials in speaking
subject can stimulate us to speak because the lecturers provide
many activities that enable us to speak in accordance with our
level of proficiency: interview, November 20, 2013)
A similar statement was also found in the interview which was
addressed by another student subject who stated that:
Student 15)
Selama ini, kelas adalah salah satu tempat dimana kami bisa
melatih bahasa Inggris kami terkhusus di mata kuliah speaking.

86 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

Materi-materinya biasanya mendorong kami untuk berbicara
melalui berbagai kegaiatan seperti wawancara, presentasi, dan
diskusi kelompok. (By this far, classroom is one of the places
where we can practice our English especially in speaking subject,
the materials normally require us to speak with interview,
presentation, and group discussion: interview, November 20,
2013)
The second, some students are of the opinion that, they need
speaking subject in the classroom to help them improve their
speaking skill which is mostly felt in unsatisfactory level. This is
related to the statement of the following students in the interview:
Student 26)
Saya rasa mata kuliah speaking dapat membantu saya untuk
mengkatkan kemampuan saya berbahasa Inggris. Kemampuan
berbicara saya sangat kurang dan saya membutuhkan tempat
untuk berlatih bercakap dan selama ini saya hanya berbahasa
Inggris di kelas terutama pada mata kuliah speaking. (I think,
speaking subject can help me to improve my skills in English. My
speaking skill is felt unsatisfactory therefore I need a place to
practice speaking and by this far, I only practice my English in the
classroom especially in speaking subject). (Interview, November
20, 2013)
Student 33)
Menurut saya, mata kuliah speaking di kampus memberikan lebih
banyak kesempatan untuk berlatih berbicara karena pelajarannya
fokus pada pengembangan keterampilan berbicara saja, tidak
seperti waktu sekolah di SMU dulu, hanya banyak mempelajari
grammar dan disuruh mengerjakan latihan dan itu yang membuat
kemampuan berbicara saya rendah. (In my opinion, speaking
subject given in the college gives more opportunities to practice
speaking because its lessons focus on developing one language
skill only, unlike in high school, the lessons generally focused on
working written grammar exercises. Therefore, my speaking skill
is now unsatisfactory). (Interview: November 21, 2013)

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 87

When providing supporting information, it is also possible to comment
some interesting statements from the participants during the interview.
This sometimes needs to be done to give emphasize that what is being
discussed is really important. The following example can illustrate how
to comment the participants’ statements:
Comments to a student’s statements:
Referring to the student 33)’s statements, She is of the opinion
that her speaking skill is felt unsatisfactory due to her insufficient
experience of using English orally when she learned English as a
subject in senior high school before going to college. Through
speaking subject given at the English education study program, it
is expected that the student can get more opportunities to speak
than her previous language learning experiences at schools.
However, it is necessary to note here that the data analysis of a certain
table can be done not only by giving comments and supporting
information to clarify the data, but also by drawing conclusions at the
end of data description. Drawing a conclusion of data analysis in this
part can be exemplified as follows:
Conclusion:
Conclusively, the data presented in table 3 reveals that speaking
subject is very important to the students at the English education
study program. The level of importance is selected for two reasons
i.e. speaking subject provides speaking stimuli for the students
and speaking subject helps the students to improve their speaking
skill.
After providing the data analysis, it is the possible to go on presenting
the next important data.
- Perceptions on the Purposes of Learning Speaking Skills
This section specifically explores the purposes of learning
speaking skills. It is essential to clarify here that purposes of learning
speaking skills refers to what the students intend to do with their
speaking skills in the future. Students commonly value speaking more
than the other skills of reading, writing and listening since speaking
skill is believed able to help them to attain some particular intended

88 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

purposes. The purposes of learning speaking for the students at the
English education study program can be illustrated in the following
table:
Table 4. The purposes of learning speaking skills

Source: Kaharuddin, 2014:107

Comments:
Falling back on the data presented in table 4.2, it was found that as
for the participants, there are three main purposes of learning
English specifically speaking skills i.e. speaking skills for
succeeding in present education (3.55), for visiting other countries
(3.51), and for pursuing advanced study (3.51). The purposes are
recognized very important according to the level of importance
score category. Speaking skills for the present education was
mostly selected by the respondents with total average score 3.55.
From the students’ perspective, speaking skill is very important to
the success of their present education (3.79) and the score average
attainment is higher than for getting a job (3.63). (Kaharuddin,
2014: 108)
Supporting information:
It seems that the expectation of the students taking a speaking
course is to help them succeed in participating in some future
courses of English education which require the students’ speaking
skills such as speaking courses, other language courses (e.g.

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 89

 introduction to linguistics, morphology, sociolinguistics etc),
research proposal as well as research report in which students
need to make presentation and answer all their examiners’
questions in English. This reason was stated by one of the students
in interview:
Student 12)
Sekarang ini saya belajar di jurusan pendidikan bahasa Inggris
seahingga secara otomatis saya dituntut untuk bisa berbahasa
Inggris dengan baik kalau saya ingin berhasil didalam pendidikan
saya saat ini. Karena, selain dimata kuliah keahliah seperti
speaking ada beberapa mata kuliah yang menggunakan metode
presentase dalam bahasa Inggris misalnya introduction to
linguistics, morphology, sociolinguistics. Selain itu pada saat
seminar proposal dan seminar hasil penelitian, kita juga harus
presentase dan menjawab pertanyaan penguji dalam bahasa
Inggris. (I am now studying at the English education department
which automatically requires qualified speaking skill for the
success of my education now. Because some subjects, beside
speaking subjects, use presentation in English method such as
introduction to linguistics, morphology, sociolinguistics. In
addition, when we present our research proposal and research
report, we are also required to make presentation and answer all
the examiners’ questions in English). (Interview: November 21,
2013)
Supporting information:
The other very important purposes of learning English are visiting
other countries and pursuing advanced study (3.51 for each,
shown in the total average score). From the graduates’
perspectives, visiting other countries achieved the highest average
score namely 3.79. As for the graduates, speaking skill is very
important to visit other country and to pursue their advanced
study (3.55). This is related to the statement of one graduate in the
interview:

90 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

 Graduate 7)
Bagi saya, kemampuan berbahasa Inggris sangat dibutuhkan
untuk mengunjungi negara lain, hal ini telah saya rasakan ketika
saya mendapatkan kesempatan berkunjung ke Amerika setelah
lulus beasiswa IELSP pada tahun 2010. Kemampuan saya
berbahasa Inggris sangat membantu saya untuk lulus di tahap
wawancara dan juga ketika saya berada di Amerika. Saya bisa
berinteraksi dengan mudah baik dalam suasana belajar maupun
dalam pergaulan sehari-hari selama saya berada di Amerika. (As
for me, speaking skill is really required to visit the other countries.
I have proved this when I got opportunity to visit America after
winning IELSP scholarship in 2010. My speaking skill was not only
very helpful in passing the interview test, but also when I was in
America. The speaking skill enabled me to interact successfully
both in classroom and in social interactions). (Interview:
November 22, 2013)
Conclusions:
Therefore, many students at the English education study program
make effort to improve their speaking skills so that they can
maximize their chance to win international scholarships because
winning the international scholarships can actualize the two
purposes as one. Hence, this information should be taken into
account by the speaking courses lecturers in developing the
instructional materials to select topics for speaking practice which
enable to facilitate the students utilizing their English skills
especially speaking when making presentation in class, visiting
other countries or pursuing their advanced study at home or
overseas.

- Perceptions on Preferred Interlocutors

In reference to the students’ main purposes of learning English (i.e. to
succeed in present education, to visit other country, and to pursue the
advanced study), the participants also realized that the English skills
especially speaking is going to be used to some preferred interlocutors
such as native English speakers and teachers. This information

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 91

apparently has something to do with the students’ major purposes of
learning English. Visiting other countries enables the students to speak
with native English speakers and pursuing their advanced study
enables them to speak with the teachers. Detailed information about
the preferred interlocutors is available in the following table:
Table 5. The students’ preferred interlocutors

Source: Kaharuddin, 2014: 110

Comments:
From the data presented in table 4.3, it is obviously seen that
speaking to native English speakers is in the top position of the
average score (3.38) which belongs to important category.
However, from the students’ perspective, most of them consider
that speaking English to native speakers of English is put forward
in very important level. This category reached the highest average
score that is 3.59 and followed by speaking to lecturers (3.31).
Supporting information:
Speaking to native English speakers was dominantly selected by
the students because they think that communicating with native
speakers of English can be used as a measurement to find out their
speaking skill progress. The more native speakers understand all

92 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

the students say, the better their speaking skill is. This reason was
described by one of the students in the interview:
Student 10)
Saya berpendapat bahwa kita perlu mengukur sebaik apa
kemampuan kita berbahasa inggris setelah kita mempelajarinya
bertahun-tahun di kampus, bagi saya berbicara dengan native
speaker bisa menjadi salah satu cara untuk mengukur kualitas
bahasa Inggris kita baik itu kualitas tata bahasanya, kosa katanya,
pengucapannya, dan budayanya. Semakin baik kemampuan kita
dalam berbicara dengan native speaker, dalam arti mereka
mengerti apa yang kita katakan tanpa kesalahpahaman dan kita
pun mengerti apa yang mereka katakan, maka semakin baik juga
kemampuan berbahasa Inggris kita. (I think, we need to measure
how good our speaking skill is, after we learned it for years in the
college. As for me, speaking with native speakers of English can be
a measurement to find out how good our speaking skill in terms of
grammar correctness, vocabulary selection, pronunciation
appropriateness, and cultural context. The better our skill in
speaking, in other words, the English native speakers understand
all we say without misunderstanding, the better our speaking skill
as well). (Interview: November 22, 1013).
Conclusions:
Based on the statement, it seems that the students prefer to speak
English to native English speakers because they find many
advantages from speaking with them such as: native English
speakers are much better at explaining grammar mistakes, native
English speakers provide accurate and authentic pronunciation
models for the students, native English speakers innately
understand the appropriateness of words usage in conversation,
native speakers understand native English speaking cultural
norms and can provide insight about them when communicating
with the students, native speakers speak English as it is actually
spoken in English speaking countries. For the reason, the students
are sure that they have good English when they can effectively
communicate with native English speakers without

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 93

 misunderstanding due to inappropriate use of grammar,
vocabulary, pronunciation, as well as cultural norms of English.

b. Gathering Information on the Section of Linguistic

Needs
This section deals with the discussion of identifying the linguistics
needs that should be used in designing instructional materials for
speaking course one at the English education study program. However,
it is essential to clarify that the concept of linguistic needs used here
refers not only to the identification of speaking components, topics for
learning, and grammar items which are important to provide in
designing syllabus and developing teaching materials, but also to the
identification of the students’ level of proficiency in the area of the
speaking components. These needs were identified based on the
perceptions of students, lecturers, as well as graduated of the English
education study program.
b.1. Perceptions on Required Speaking Components
In pedagogical perspective, learning speaking skills may not be a
part from the process of mastering its components i.e. vocabulary,
pronunciation, and grammar. In communication, people occasionally
find that lexical problems frequently interfere with communication in
which communication breaks down when people do not use the right
vocabulary for particular purposes of communication. Vocabulary is the
tool of illustrating thought, self-expression, translation and
communication. In any language teaching, vocabulary plays a
tremendously important role. The prominent linguist, Wilkins is of the
opinion that people could describe few things without grammar, but
they could express nothing without vocabulary. The idea is also
supported by Widdowson’s statement that the native English speaker
can understand those language material with correct vocabulary but
not so proper in grammar rules rather than those with correct
grammar rules but not so proper in vocabulary use. It stands to reason
for saying that vocabulary is the key to open the door of language
acquisition.

94 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

 Besides, pronunciation is also an important element of language to
learn. When someone is talking to a native English speaker in real life
interaction, the first thing the native speaker may notice right away is
the speaker’s pronunciation but not his limited vocabulary or grammar
mistakes. Native English speakers will generally think that those who
have poor pronunciation are those who speak bad English even though
they have good grammar and vocabulary. Therefore, good
pronunciation should be one of the first things that students need to
learn in English. The students can live without advanced vocabulary
and can use simple words to say all they want to say. They can also live
without advanced grammar and can use simple grammar structures
instead. But there is no such thing as “simple pronunciation”. If the
students don’t have good pronunciation, people will consequently have
serious problems understanding what they say even if they use correct
grammar and a large number of vocabulary.
In addition, grammar has been one of the most controversial
issues in the field of foreign language teaching since some language
practitioners claim that it is important to learn, but some think that it is
not. However, grammar has currently gained a prominent position in
foreign language classrooms, and people agree that it is “too important”
to be ignored, and that without a good knowledge of grammar, learners’
language development will be severely constrained” (Richards and
Renandya, 2001: 145). Grammar is considered the “sentence-making
machine” of a language, and knowledge of grammar gives the learner
the ability to create a countless number of original sentences (Zhang,
2009: 186). It is, furthermore, essential as it provides the basis for
promoting speaking skill.
The discussion in this section has examined the importance of
providing the fore mentioned language components in the syllabus
design of speaking course one based on the perceptions of the
respondents in this research. The information can be found out in the
following table:

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 95

 Table 6. The importance level of language components

Source: Kaharuddin (2014:115)

Comments:
The result in table 6 shows that most of the respondents think,
both learning vocabulary and pronunciation in speaking course
are in the very important level in which learning vocabulary
achieved the highest average score i.e. 3.93, followed by learning
pronunciation that is 3.80.
Supporting information:
This fact indicates that as for the respondents, learning vocabulary
is a very important part of learning speaking. It is even considered
as the cornerstone of performing speaking skills. Even if the
students possess the best understanding of English grammar, it
will not allow the students able to speak without having a large of
vocabulary. as stated by one of the students in the interview:
Student 31)
Menurut saya, pelajaran kosa kata sangat penting diberikan dalam
mata kuliah speaking karena kita pasti tidak akan bisa berbicara
tanpa kosa kata meskipun kita mengetahui banyak tata bahasa.
Jadi, kosa kata yang kita miliki sangat menentukan kemampuan
kita dalam membicarakan topik tertentu. Kita tidak akan mampu

96 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

menyampaikan pikiram kita, perasaan kita, pendapat kita dalam
berbicara dan kita pun tidak akan mudah memahami ucapan
orang tanpa kosa kata yang memadai. (In my opinion, vocabulary
is very important to teach in speaking subject because we will
exactly not be able to speak without vocabulary although we know
more English grammar. So, vocabulary that we have is very
important to enable us talking about a particular topic. We will not
be able to convey our thoughts, feelings as well as opinions when
speaking and it won’t be easy for us to understand what others say
without a large vocabulary). (Interview: November 21, 2013).
Conclusions:
From the statement, we can obviously know that vocabulary is
central to English language teaching particularly teaching
speaking skill because without sufficient vocabulary students
cannot understand others or express their own ideas. It stands to
reason that most respondents believe the more vocabulary they
know, the more they will be able to say what they want to when
speaking; and the better they will be able to understand what they
hear in interacting with others.
Comments:
In terms of pronunciation, the majority of respondents think that
pronunciation is very important to learn in speaking subjects with
3.80 average score.
Supporting information:
Pronunciation is extremely important to learn. The reality shows
that many cases of misunderstanding in oral communication were
caused by improper pronunciation such as mispronouncing
words, stress or intonation. For example, when a student
pronounces the words like sea and she, sick and six improperly,
this can lead to a misunderstanding. This statement is associated
with one of the students’ opinion conveyed in the interview:
Student 43)
Menurut saya, pengucapan sangat penting dipelajari karena kita
tau bahwa cara pengucapan kata didalam bahasa Inggris berbeda

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 97

 dengan bahasa Indonesia. inilah yang menjadikan pengucapan
dalam bahasa Inggris sangat susah. Di STAIN, banyak mahasiswa
menghafal banyak kosa kata, menguasai tata bahasa, tetapi
pengucapan mereka jelek sehingga sering kali mereka berbicara
tetapi kalimatnya susah dimengerti. (I think, pronunciation is very
important to learn because we realize that the way English words
pronounced is different from those from Indonesian and this
makes English pronunciation felt difficult. At STAIN, many
students have memorized a large vocabulary and grammar rules
but their pronunciation is bad that they frequently speak, however
their sentences are difficult to understand due to improper
pronunciation). (Interview: November 22, 2013).
Conclusions:
In the statement above, we can clearly see that pronunciation is
very important to learn for non native speakers of English in order
to have good pronunciation. The importance of good
pronunciation can be easily realized by speaking to native English
speakers. If the native speakers find it difficult to understand our
statements by replying with “what?”,”huh?” or ”could you repeat
that”, it indicates that our pronunciation needs improvement.
Achieving good pronunciation doesn’t mean to have native-
speaker-like pronunciation. Our accent in pronunciation is part of
our culture and we may not lose it entirely. Having good
pronunciation reflects what we call ‘comfortable intelligibility’. In
other words, the interlocutors listening to us able to understand
what we are saying that communication takes place effectively.
Comments:
In addition, grammar is another element of language which also
exists in speaking. With regard to grammar, the respondents of
this study give average score i.e. 3.45 which means ‘important’.
Supporting information:
As for linguists, the importance of grammar is undeniable because
grammar is the form of the language, and words and phrases are
the content of the language, the most important part of the
language. If there is no form, there is no content. Therefore, when

98 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

someone is speaking, his speech requires correct grammar that
the other people can easily understand his statements. Without
using proper grammar, people are actually just mumbling words
with no connection or order. Nonetheless, many students consider
that grammar should be the last priority given in the speaking
course because grammar will become an obstacle in promoting
their speaking skill particularly for those who are still beginner
students. So, the main thing in speaking is to practice
communicating their message first and then to learn grammar
later after they can communicate. Such opinion is stated by one of
the students in the interview:
Student 53)
Sebenarnya, grammar penting dalam berbicara karena grammar
membuat bahasa kita lebih mudah dimengerti. Tetapi dalam
belajar harus ada prioritas dan porsi materi termasuk dalam
belajar di mata kuliah speaking satu, prioritas materinya
sebaiknya pada kosa kata dan pengucapan dulu kemudian
terakhir tata bahasa setelah kami mempunyai cukup kosa kata
untuk berbicara. Kalau kita belajar tata bahasa duluan atau porsi
belajar tata bahasanya banyak maka akan mempersulit kita dalam
berbicara karena kita selalu memikirkan pola kalimatnya dulu.
Jadi idealnya kosa kata dan pengucapan diberi porsi 80 persen dan
tata bahasa 20 persen. Dengan porsi seperti ini, kita bisa lebih
fokus melatih kemampuan berbicara tanpa dihambat oleh
grammar karena materi grammarnya diberikan belakangan.
(Actually, using grammar in speaking is important because
grammar allows our language easy to understand. However, in
learning, especially learning in speaking course one, there must be
portion and priority. Vocabulary and pronunciation should be the
first priority and grammar should be the last. Grammar is given
when we already have sufficient vocabulary and pronunciation. If
we learn grammar as the priority, it will make speaking difficult
because we always think about the rules of grammar before
speaking. So, the portion is ideally 80 % for vocabulary and
pronunciation, and 20 % for grammar. With such materials
portion, we can focus more on practicing speaking skill without

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 99

 being intimidated by grammar since it is given at the end of the
lesson). (Interview: November 22, 2013).
Conclusions:
In general, grammar is inseparable from speaking skills.
Therefore, the students put it in the important level. Since it is the
backbone of English language, it must be understood in order for
one to communicate effectively. However, grammar in speaking
course one should be given in a smaller portion than vocabulary
and pronunciation. To do this, inductive grammar teaching
approach should be used because the students need grammar to
be given at the end of the course after they get opportunity to
practice vocabulary from particular topic, appropriate use and
pronunciation of the vocabulary in speaking activities.
Since the information above is used for selecting the contenst of the
course design, it is also possible to present a clearer picture of the
participants’ selection on particular speaking components that should
exist in instructional materials with a chart. This displays the level of
importance based on the analysis of average of occurrence in each
speaking component as clear as possible. The information presented
through chart can be exemplified as follows.

Figure 1 The importance level of speaking components

100 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

b.2. Perceptions on Topics for Learning
It has already been revealed that the design of syllabus here is
going to use vocabulary, pronunciation, and grammar as fundamental
elements in organizing instructional materials. However, identifying
the linguistic needs in terms of identifying speaking elements to be
taught is not enough, we need to go a step further to find out what
topics for learning are the most appropriate for the students to learn
for the sake of making them speak fluently and accurately. As everyone
knows that the notions of speaking and vocabulary cannot be apart
from the notion of ‘topic’. Every time two people or more involve in
verbal interactions, they will readily refer to their interactions with
others as ‘having a conversation’ which means talking to or with
someone and use a large vocabulary to talk about one or more topics of
conversation.
For the reason the discussion in this section presents information
about a variety of real life topics that the participants have chosen to be
the most preferred materials in syllabus design of speaking course one.
In order to identify the most preferred topics, three important steps
need to be done i.e.
- Step one: gaining information from the participants on the
importance of learning speaking course through real life topics.
- Step two: providing a list of the real life topics to be selected by the
participants, in which all topics in the list are adopted from
Brown’s (2001:104) topics scope and sequence for teaching
beginning levels.
- Step three: Picking up the selected topics on the basis of the
syllabus needs and ranking the topics according to their level of
importance.
To initiate the discussion, let’s take a look at how to carry out Step One
that is to present information on the importance of learning
vocabulary in speaking by using real life topics. This can be exemplified
in the following table:

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 101

 Table 7. Perceptions on the importance of learning speaking
through real life topics

Source: Kaharuddin (2014: 124)

Comments:
Falling back on the data presented in table 7, it was found that
most of most of the participants think, it is very important to learn
speaking by enriching the students’ vocabulary from real life
topics. This is indicated by the average score attainment i.e. 3.51
which means very important.
Supporting information
Therefore, language teachers are in need of providing
instructional materials of speaking course which contain a variety
of real life topics. In other words, the students should learn
speaking from real life topics which provide a large number of
vocabularies according to their needs for using English to
encompass first the most necessary, relevant and frequently used
vocabulary. Doing this way can be a valuable strategy for the
speaking course teachers to help their students master English
vocabulary logically, comprehensively and intensively in
accordance with real life needs of the students.

102 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

The next step is Step Two that is to provide the list of the real life topics
to be selected. There have been twenty (20) real life topics offered and
the participants are required to select the topics based on their
perceptions of the topics’ importance level to determine the most
preferred real life topics to learn in the speaking course one. Then, the
result of the participants’ selection can be presented in the table below:

Table 8 Perceptions on the most preferred topics to learn

Source: Kaharuddin (2014: 125)

In speaking, topic is the subject of speech. The reality shows that

many students can easy handle conversations, discussions, as well as
presentations when they get familiar to the topic. On the contrary, some
students find it very difficult to take a part in conversations,
discussions, and presentations due to their unfamiliarity to the topic

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 103

being talked about. Therefore, the students really need to learn
speaking effectively based on real life topics given through the
instructional materials of the speaking course.
Comments:
Table 8 describes the respondents’ perceptions about the speaking
topics that should be available in speaking course one. However,
the perceptions are slightly different from each group of
participants. From the students’ perspective, it is found that three
topics are identified very important i.e. ‘days and daily routines’,
‘cooking and food’, and ‘time’ with score attainment 3.59, 3.53, and
3.51 respectively. Besides, the graduates’ perceptions identify
more topics as very important topics to learn in speaking course
one i.e. ‘future (3.82)’, ‘family (3.73)’, ‘days and daily routines
(3.73)’, ‘work and chores (3.73)’, ‘classroom (3.64)’, ‘money
(3.64)’, ‘occupation (3.55)’, ‘physical characteristics (3.55)’,’clothes
and colors (3.55)’, as well as ‘cooking and food (3.55)’. However,
the lecturers’ perceptions give a fewer topics identified as very
important things to learn in speaking course one i.e. ‘meeting the
people’ and ‘classroom’ with the scores attainment namely 3.6.
Supporting information:
The average scores of all respondents are between 3.00 and 3.55
which means that the topics are in level of important and very
important. Nevertheless, we may not include those topics in the
syllabus design of speaking course one because according to the
curriculum of the English education study program, speaking
course one is a two (2) credit course which is normally taught
within twelve (12) sessions with midterm one session and final
test one session for one semester.
Therefore, we need to carry out the Step Three that is to rank the topics
from the highest to the lowest average scores to take out twelve topics
to be included in the syllabus organization and eventually developed to
be instructional materials for speaking course one. The rank
classification can obviously seen in the following table.

104 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

 Table 9. The topics rank according to the average scores to be
included in the syllabus design

Source : Kaharuddin (2014: 127)

Comments:
Based on the data of table 9, the speaking topics selected have
average score range from 3.28 to 3.55. The topics could then be
listed into order according to the level of importance as follows:
1) Classroom (3.55 = very important)
2) Cooking and food (3.53 = very important)
3) Days &daily routine (3.51 = very important)
4) Future (3.48 = important)
5) Meeting people (3.48 = important)
6) Work chores (3.48 = important)
7) Occupation (3.45 = important)

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 105

 8) Money (3.34 = important)
9) Time (3.32 = important)
10) Clothes &color (3.31= important)
11) Free time (3.29 = important)
12) Family (3.28 = important)
In designing syllabus and developing course contents, all the
speaking topics listed above should be included since they are
considered important or very important for the students of the
English education study program to be learnt in speaking course
one.

b.3. Perceptions on Grammar Items

Beside the speaking topics as selected above, another speaking
element is also required by the students that is grammar. As for the
students, grammar in speaking subject is considered not very
important since it can become a stumbling block for the students’
fluency. Nevertheless, the lecturers may not totally throw this away out
of the speaking course. It is very important to make the students realize
that they need grammar to speak effectively. Based on the participants’
perceptions, grammar is important to learn in speaking course but not
as a priority. In gathering information on preferred grammar items to
be learnt in speaking course one, there are only two important steps
need to do i.e.
- Step One: a number of grammar items adapted from Brown’s
(2001:104) grammar scope and sequence for teaching beginning
level are suggested to select.
- Step Two: the selected grammar items are ranked according to
the average score achievement by the participants according to
the level of importance and time allocation for speaking course
one.
In carrying out Step One, All the respondents have given their
perceptions associated with the grammar items that should be
available in speaking course one. The result of the participants’
selection can be found out in the following table:

106 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

 Table 10. The respondents’ perceptions on grammar items for
syllabus design

Source: Kaharuddin (2014:129)

Comments:
The data of table 10 indicate that the suggested grammar items
are mostly considered important for the respondents. From the
students’ and the lecturers’ perceptions, no grammar item is
categorized very important. All the average scores of the
suggested grammar items range from 3.29 to 3.50 which all mean
‘important’. Different thing is found in the graduates’ perception,
in which the graduates identify some grammar items in ‘very
important level’ i.e. ‘pronoun (3.73)’, ‘adjective (3.73)’, ‘be verb
(3.64)’, ‘action verb (3.64)’, ‘preposition (3.64)’ and ‘adverb
(3.55)’. However, in closer inspection, we rank the suggested
grammar items according the average scores attainment, we
obviously find out two grammar items in the level of very
important i.e. pronouns and adjectives with average score 3.55
and 3.51 respectively.

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 107

 After giving the participants opportunity to provide their
perceptions on preferred grammar items, let’s take a look at how Step
Two is carried out. As stated earlier that not all the suggested grammar
items are used in teaching speaking course one. The grammar items
have to selected based on the rank of importance level and time
allocation. The rank of importance level indicates priority, while time
allocation indicates the number of sessions which are specifically given
to a particular grammar item. As we know that speaking course one is
effectively carried out within twelve sessions that we need to
determine the grammar items to be included in the syllabus design
according to the priority and time allocation. Therefore, nine (9)
grammar items, as listed below, are taken into account to be used in the
instructional materials of speaking course one.

Another important thing is that the grammar items as indicated in

the list have to be integrated with the speaking topics given in each
session and will become integral parts of each lesson in the
instructional materials of speaking course one. The integration can be
seen in another part of discussion.

108 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

b.4. Perceptions on the Students’ Level of Speaking Proficiency
It has already been revealed that in terms of identifying linguistic
needs for designing syllabus of speaking course one, besides identifying
the components of speaking skills which are mostly selected to be
prioritized in the design process, it is also essential that the writer
identify the students’ level of proficiency in the area of the three
speaking components. The information gained from this part is very
influential as well to select the syllabus and the course content. The
proficiency level of all the speaking components which are identified to
be ‘poor and fair’ should be given more priority in the instructional
materials. To disclose the information on the speaking components
which are mostly considered as difficulties or problems, the writer of
this study analyzed the data provided by the 116 students as presented
in the following table:
Table 11. Students’ perceptions about their speaking level of
proficiency

Source: Kaharuddin (2014:121)

Comments:
The data in table 4.5 obviously indicates that the students’
speaking proficiency level needs improving since the level of
proficiency among the speaking components ranges around level
‘poor’ and ‘fair’ which can be seen from both the analysis of

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 109

 frequency and average score. In the average score for example, the
students’ proficiency level of grammar is 1.44 (poor),
pronunciation is 1.63 (fair), and vocabulary is 1.7 (fair).
Supporting information:
According to the students, grammar is felt unsatisfactory due to
the students’ tendency to have less attention to learn grammar in
speaking subject. Most of them are of the opinion that learning
grammar is an obstacle for them to attain fluency in speaking (as
stated by student 53 in the interview). However, the student’s
statement may not be interpreted as an effort to ignore grammar
entirely in the speaking course, but this can serve as a good input
for the syllabus designer or lecturer in order to prioritize
vocabulary and pronunciation in teaching speaking and
strengthen out by grammar rules after speaking practices in the
classroom.
Conclusions:
From the analysis of the participants’ perceptions on language
components and the students’ proficiency level in the three areas
of speaking components, we find out that vocabulary,
pronunciation, as well as grammar have to be taken into
consideration as a cornerstone to design the speaking course one
syllabus by looking at the following conditions:
1. Vocabulary and pronunciation are considered very important
to be available in speaking course one. This level of importance
is determined based on the average score attained by the two
components in which vocabulary achieves 3.93 and
pronunciation achieves 3.80. This condition requires the
syllabus designer to give the first priority to vocabulary
enrichment and pronunciation drills in each lesson.
2. Different from the two previous components of speaking,
grammar is not considered very important, but important
instead. This level of importance is stipulated based on the
respondents’ perception indicated through the average score in
which grammar achieves 3.45. This fact indicates that grammar
cannot be totally ignored in organizing the later materials for

110 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

 speaking course one. However, the portion has to be smaller
than the other two components. Besides, it can be presented at
the end of a lesson.

c. Gathering Information on the Section of Learning

Needs
To design the speaking course syllabus, two kinds of information
are required i.e. information associated with linguistic needs and
learning needs. Therefore, after identifying the information on the
linguistic needs, let’s take a look at how the second type of information
on the students’ learning needs collected. First of all it is essential to
know that learning needs here refers to the students' learning patterns
and styles or learning preferences which are described by identifying
their learning problems and their attitudes toward current educational
activities. Identifying the two kinds of information is able to give an
illustration about how students should learn well which in turn can
assist the lecturers to give the most appropriate teaching methods,
strategies when teaching the students that the students finally can
achieve better learning outcomes. The process of gathering the
information is described as following discussions.
c.1. Perceptions on the Students Learning Problems
In this part, learning problems can be viewed as the difficulties that
arise from learning speaking as a course. The purpose is to identify the
students’ learning needs based on their problems in learning and to
make necessary adjustments to the future instructions in the
classroom. The identification of possible learning problems arising
from learning in speaking course is carried out with two steps i.e.
getting participants to provide their responses to a series questions
about learning problems in speaking course and identifying the
students’ learning problems on the basis of the responses. After going
through the first step, the information on the students’ learning
problems in speaking course is then possible to be identified as
indicated in table 12.

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 111

 Table 12. The students’ perceptions on learning problems
in speaking course

Source: Kaharuddin (2014:133)

Comments:
According to table 12, we can see that the students at least
experience four learning problems as they learn to speak in
English i.e.
a. The first is psychological problem in which the students feel
shy speaking English (2.74) because they are afraid of making
mistakes (3.04) and afraid of being criticized by teachers and
other students due to their mistakes (3),
b. The second is mother tongue interference problem in which
the students often use their native language when they should
speak English in the classroom activities (3.09),
c. The third is problem associated with insufficient knowledge of
the topic in which the students don’t have enough information
and vocabulary to talk about the topics being discussed (2.99),

112 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

 d. The fourth is problem with limited linguistic resources e.g. lack
of vocabulary (3.06), pronunciation (3.03), and grammar
(3.25), which causes the students unable to speak English
effectively.
Supporting information:
The learning problems faced by the students are in the ‘often’ level
of frequency because all the problems’ average scores range from
2.74 to 3.25 which mean ‘often’ occur when the students speak
English. All these indicate the importance for lecturers or course
designers to help students reduce the effects of those problems
and to maximize their learning to speak in English by selecting the
most appropriate approaches, methods, and strategies in teaching
as the possible solutions to overcome the problems.

c.2. Perceptions on the Students Learning Attitudes

Learning attitudes here refer to the students’ feeling on learning
something which is normally affected by the students’ learning style.
Therefore, when a teaching process does not match the students’
learning styles, it will result in learning attitudes that decrease the
students’ effort, creativity in the learning process. According to Brown
(1995: 44), an attitude in learning needs is analyzed to uncover
information about how well the students like studying in a program.
Therefore, to describe learning attitude, we need to know the students’
learning preferences and learning styles. Learning preference refers to
the way the students tend to learn best. On the other hand, learning
styles refer to the educational conditions under which the students are
most likely to learn. For the reason, learning preferences are concerned
with what learners need to learn in order to learn (task or activities),
and learning styles are associated with how they need to learn in order
to learn (teaching methods), (Stewart and Felicetti, 1992: 15).
With regard to that issue, it is believed that the students’ learning
attitude is much affected by the students learning preferences and
styles, for example; some students want more opportunities to
participate in free conversation, expressing their wish towards a more
communicatively oriented approach with role-play learning activities.

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 113

However, the teacher more emphasizes on grammar teaching and gets
the students to work on written grammar exercises. Consequently, the
students perform negative learning attitude toward the teaching
process due to mismatch between their learning styles and the teaching
styles. The negative attitude will automatically influence the students’
language performance. As Visser (2008) states that attitude is
considered as an essential factor influencing language performance.
- Students’ Learning Preferences
Learning preferences of the students are explored by presenting
the participants’ perceptions (the students’ the lecturers, and the
graduates) on how the students should learn major components of
speaking that is vocabulary and pronunciation as indicated in the
following tables.
Table 13 The respondents’ perceptions on the students’
vocabulary learning preferences

Source: Kaharuddin (2014:136)

Comments:
Based on the table above, we can see that there are six ways of
learning vocabulary given to the respondents in order to provide
their perceptions on which among the six the most preferred ways
for the students are. The above data illustrate, from the students’

114 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

 point of view,’ learning vocabulary through communicating the
vocabulary’, ‘through dialogues or conversations’ and learning
vocabulary according to topics are identified as the most preferred
ways. The fact is proven by the average scores attainment of the
two in which communicating the vocabulary achieves 3.78,
learning vocabulary from dialogues or conversations achieves
3.59, and learning vocabulary according to topics achieves 3.51
that mean ‘very important’.
Different perceptions are stated by the graduates and the
lecturers. According to them, there are three ways of learning
vocabulary should be employed by the students i.e. learning
vocabulary by communicating the vocabulary with average score 4
from the graduates and 3.8 from the lecturers, learning vocabulary
from dialogues or conversation with average score 3.82 from the
graduates and 3.7 from the lecturers, learning vocabulary by
listening and repeating the vocabulary with average score 3.73
from the graduates and 3.7 from the lecturers, as well as learning
vocabulary based on topics with average score 3.55 from the
graduates and 3.6 from the lecturers.
Supporting information:
Hence, we can now determine the students’ preferences in
learning vocabulary. According to the average scores categorized
‘very important ’from all participants, the students should learn
vocabulary through:
1. Communicating the vocabulary (3.86=very important)
2. Dialogues (3.7=very important)
3. Listening and repeating vocabulary (3.63=very important)
4. Topics (3.55=very important)
The listed ways of preferred vocabulary learning should be taken
into account to be selected as strategies in teaching vocabulary for
speaking course one that should clearly be described in the course
design of the subject.
Besides identifying the students’ vocabulary learning preferences,
it is also essential that we find out the students’ pronunciation learning
preferences. The information about it is available in the table below:

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 115

Table 14 Perceptions on the preferences of learning pronunciation

Source: Kaharuddin (2014:138)

Comments:
The table above shows that there are three possible ways of
learning pronunciation given to the participants so that they
provide their perceptions on which way among the three the most
preferred way for the students to learn pronunciation in speaking
course one. The result of the data analysis indicates that the
respondents think ‘learning pronunciation from native English
speakers’ voice recording’ is the most appropriate way for the
students to learn pronunciation of English. This can be found out
from the average score attainment in which the students give the
average score 3.82, the graduates give the same score that is 3.82,
and the lecturers give 3.8. The total average score from all
respondents is 3.81 meaning ‘very important’. This information
should become the only strategy to employ in teaching
pronunciation for the students of speaking course one at the
English education study program.
- Students’ Learning Styles
The foregoing part of this section has focused on investigating the
students’ learning preferences in speaking course one. We will turn
now to a consideration of discussing the students’ learning styles. To
initiate this discussion, it is first of all necessary to see types of learning

116 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

styles that students commonly have according to Willing (1988) which
are then succinctly summed up by Nunan (1991: 170) with reference to
the kind of activities the students prefer.
Type 1: Concrete learners
These learners tend to like games, pictures, films, video, using cassettes,
talking in pairs and practicing English outside class.
Type 2: Analytical learners
These learners like studying grammar, studying English books and
reading newspapers, studying alone, finding their own mistakes and
working on problems set by the teacher.
Type 3: Communicative learners
These students like to learn by watching, listening to native speakers,
talking to friends in English and watching television in English, using
English out of class in shops, trains, etc., learning new words by hearing
them, and learning by conversations.
Type 4: Teacher-oriented learners
These learners prefer the teacher to explain everything, like to have
their own textbook, to write everything in a notebook, to study
grammar, learn by reading, and learn new words by seeing them.
Let’s take a look at the discussion of the students’ learning style based
on the results of data analysis which can be seen in the following table.

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 117

 Table 15 Perceptions on the students’ learning styles

Source: Kaharuddin (2014:140)

Comments:
The above data illustrate that ‘talk to friend in English’ is the most
preferred way of learning speaking. This category achieves the highest
average score among the others that is 3.84 which means ‘very
important’. The other learning preferences of learning speaking which
are also identified in the level of ‘very important’ for the students:
1. Learning speaking by games (3.76)
2. Learning speaking from films and videos (3.71)
3. Learning speaking by talking in pairs (3.64)
4. Learning speaking by pictures (3.58)
5. Learning speaking in small group (3.56)
6. Learning speaking by role play (3.54)
Supporting information:
If we relate the findings above to the types of learning styles, it
illustrates that the students can be categorized as communicative and
concrete learners. Those categories are drawn up by matching the

118 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

respondents’ most preferred activities in learning speaking and the
typical characteristics of the four learning styles as stated previously.
Conclusions:
Therefore, when designing syllabus and instructional materials for the
speaking course one, the lecturers and the course designers should
base on the principles underlining the above findings (such as learning
through pictures, films and videos) take into consideration to be
integrated with small group discussions, pair works, games, role play to
maximize the students’ talk to friends in English. Conducting such an
effort to accommodate learning styles for selecting suitable teaching
styles, methodologies and course organization can result in improved
learners’ satisfaction and attainment (Willing, 1988:1).
The analysis results of the students’ linguistics and learning needs
have enriched the understanding of overall needs that are required to
design syllabus for speaking course one at the English education study
program. The results of the analysis from the students, the graduates,
as well as the lectures’ perceptions found out various needs categories
also known as the Needs inventory. The information of the needs
inventory must be used to formulate aims and objectives for syllabus
design as a basis to determine the outcomes to be achieved in speaking
course one. Besides, aims and objectives are also useful to make the
learning process transparent to the students in terms of the course
contents. For such purposes, let's take a look at how to use the
information of the needs inventory to formulate aims and objectives.

3. Using the Needs Analysis Information

In the step of using needs analysis information, the writers use the
results of needs analysis to formulate the learning goals. The learning
goals are then used as the basis for designing syllabus of speaking
course one in the development phase later. To initiate the discussion in
this section, let us first review all the needs inventory identified in the
previous steps.

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 119

a. Reviewing Needs Inventory from the Linguistics Needs
Identifying linguistic needs is carried out by analyzing the
students’ learning ability and learning priorities. The results of the
analysis are used for prioritizing the components of speaking skills and
selecting appropriate teaching materials which are required to design
the syllabus of speaking course one.
a.1 Learning Ability
The process of identification is first of all carried out by analyzing
the students’ learning ability in speaking course. Learning ability is
measured based on the results of analysis of the students’ proficiency
level in the area of the three speaking components i.e. vocabulary,
pronunciation, and grammar. The results of analysis indicate that the
students’ proficiency level of all the speaking components ranges
around level ‘poor’ and ‘fair’ as indicated in the following average
scores achievement.
1. Vocabulary (the average score is 1.7 = fair).
2. Pronunciation (the average score is 1.63 = fair)
3. Grammar (the average is 1.44 = poor)
Even if the students’ grammar average score is felt poor, but the
lecturers should not give priority to this component due to the
students’ tendency to have less attention to learn grammar in speaking
course. However, grammar may not totally be ignored in the speaking
course. The lecturers should prioritize vocabulary and pronunciation in
teaching speaking and be strengthened out by grammar rules after
speaking practices in the classroom.
a.2 Learning Priorities
Determining learning priorities is conducted by analyzing the
respondents’ perceptions on the importance level of giving the
speaking skills’ components (i.e. vocabulary, pronunciation, and
grammar) to speaking course one. The results of the analysis can be
recognized as follows:
1. Vocabulary (the average score is 3.93 = very important)
2. Pronunciation (the average score is 3.80 = very important)
3. Grammar (the average score is 3.45 = important)

120 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

The findings above illustrate that the syllabus designers need to give
the first priority to vocabulary enrichment, the second priority to
pronunciation drills, the last priority to grammar in each unit or lesson.

The Needs for Learning Vocabulary and Pronunciation

Vocabulary and pronunciation are the items of speaking skills
which have been the priority to learn. With regard to learning the two
items, almost all respondents think, it is ‘very important’ to learn
speaking by enriching the students’ vocabulary from real life topics
with average score 3.51. Twenty real life topics were given to the
respondents to be selected. Twelve topics were then selected based on
the analysis of the respondents’ perceptions according to the level of
importance as follows:
1) Classroom (3.55 = very important)
2) Cooking and food (3.53 = very important)
3) Days &daily routine (3.51 = very important)
4) Future (3.48 = important)
5) Meeting people (3.48 = important)
6) Work chores (3.48 = important)
7) Occupation (3.45 = important)
8) Money (3.34 = important)
9) Time (3.32 = important)
10) Clothes &color (3.31= important)
11) Free time (3.29 = important)
12) Family (3.28 = important)
Conclusively, all the speaking topics as listed above should be
included since they are considered important or very important for the
students to be learnt in speaking course one at the English education
study program.

The Needs for Learning Grammar

In addition to learning speaking through real life topics, the
students also need to learn grammar, even if grammar in speaking
subject is not very important since it is frequently regarded as a

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 121

hindrance for the students’ fluency. However, the lecturers should not
entirely ignore it when teaching speaking. It is necessary that the
lecturers describe the importance of grammar for the students to help
them speak English effectively. A variety of grammar items were given
to be selected by all the respondents. The results of analysis of their
perceptions associated with the grammar items resulted in selecting
nine (9) grammar items, as listed below:

The grammar items as listed above should be adapted with the

speaking topics given in each session and will become integral parts of
each lesson in the instructional materials of speaking course one. The
overall linguistic needs of the students are illustrated in the following
table:

122 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

 Table 16 The overall needs inventory from linguistic needs

Source: Kaharuddin (2014:146)

b. Reviewing Needs Inventory from the Learning Needs

The students learning needs in this study were identified by
analyzing the students learning problems and learning attitudes. The
students’ learning problems were described based on the analysis of
the respondents’ perceptions (the students’ the lecturers, and the
graduates) on the obstacles to the students learning success to be able
to speak effectively in speaking subject. While to explain the students’
attitude, the writer analyzed the students’ learning preferences and
learning styles based on the respondents’ perceptions since these two
factors were believed able to affect the students’ attitudes in learning.

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 123

b.1 The Students’ Learning Problems
Based on the analysis of the respondents’ perceptions on the
students’ learning problems, it is found that the students learning
difficulties can apparently stem from many causes. These include:
a. The psychological problems such as feeling shy speaking English,
being afraid of making mistakes, being afraid of being criticized by
teachers and other students due to their mistakes.
b. The mother tongue interference problem like using the native
language when they should speak English in the classroom
activities most of the time.
c. The problem of insufficient knowledge of the topic like having no
enough information and vocabulary to talk about the topics being
discussed.
d. The problem of limited linguistic resources e.g. lack of vocabulary,
pronunciation, and grammar, which causes the students unable to
speak English effectively.
After acknowledging the students’ learning problems, the
lecturers can start addressing to choose the most appropriate teaching
methods to help the students learn and to minimize the effect of the
learning problems to their learning success in speaking subject.
b.2 The Students Learning Attitudes
It has already been stated that learning attitudes are analyzed to
uncover how well the students like to learn. For the reason, the focus of
this discussion deals with identifying the students learning preferences
and styles in learning to speak in speaking course one based on the
respondents’ perceptions. The identification of the learning preferences
and styles will enable the teachers to better understand the strategies
and methods that might be the most efficient for teaching speaking
course one which in turn will serve to produce more desirable learning
outcomes and significantly increases the students’ achievement level
(Dunn, Deckinger, Withers,& Katzenstein, 1990:96).

124 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

The Students’ Learning Preferences
The students’ learning preferences in speaking course one are
specifically focused on describing the students’ preferences in learning
vocabulary and pronunciation. From the analysis results of the
respondents, it is found out that the students prefer to learn vocabulary
by:
1. Communicating the vocabulary
2. Learning dialogues or conversations
3. Listening and repeating
4. Learning it though real life topics
The listed ways of preferred vocabulary learning should be taken
into account to be selected as strategies in teaching vocabulary for
speaking course one.
In identifying the students preference in pronunciation, three
possible ways of learning pronunciation were given to the respondents
so that they provide their perceptions and the results of the data
analysis convey that the students prefer to learn pronunciation from:

“Native English speakers’ voice recording”

Thus, this information should become the only strategy to employ in

teaching pronunciation for the students of speaking course one at the
English education study program.

The students’ Learning Styles

The results of the data analysis associated with the students’
learning styles indicate that the students at the English education study
program can mostly be categorized as communicative and concrete
learners. Those categories are drawn up by matching the respondents’
most preferred activities in learning speaking and the typical
characteristics of the four learning styles as stated by Willing (1981).
They are:

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 125

1. Learning speaking by talking to friend in English
2. Learning speaking by language games
3. Learning speaking from films and videos
4. Learning speaking by talking in pairs
5. Learning speaking by pictures
6. Learning speaking in small group
7. Learning speaking by role play
Detailed information on the students’ learning needs can be seen in the
following table:
Table 17 The overall needs inventory from learning needs

Source: kaharuddin (2014:150)

126 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

c. Determining the Aims and Objectives of the Syllabus
The results of the data gathered through questionnaires and
interviews have been analyzed and put in the table to be clarified
qualitatively. They have shown that the needs analysis conducted
specifically to design syllabus of speaking course one have resulted in:
1. identifying the students’ learning ability in speaking course
2. determining the language components which are mostly required
to learn as priority in speaking course one
3. identifying the real life topics and basic grammar items which are
mostly preferred by the students
4. identifying the obstacles or problems which are mostly
experienced by the students in learning to speak in the classroom
5. identifying the learning preferences and the learning styles that
are mostly preferred by the students.
Another crucial dimension of decision making in syllabus design is
to determine the aims and the objectives of a language program. In
syllabus design context, the terms ‘aims’ or ‘goals’ refer to general
statements or ‘signposts’ reflecting the underlying ideology of the
curriculum. Richards (2001: 120) suggests that aims have four main
purposes:
1. To provide a reason for the program
2. To provide guidelines for teachers and learners
3. To provide a focus for learning
4. To describe important and realizable changes in learning (or in
students)
It is mentioned that “stating your goals helps to bring into focus
your visions and priorities for the course” Graves (2000: 75). And she
keeps on saying that they are general statements, but they are not
vague. In addition, objectives are more specific than aims. They break
down aims into smaller units of learning, and typically describe
learning in terms of observable behavior or performance (performance
objectives), i.e. they describe ‘learning outcomes’ in terms of what a
learner will be able to do. Objectives help planning the course and
enable evaluators to judge the success or failure of a program. Richards
(2001:123) suggests that objectives generally have the following
characteristics:

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 127

1. They describe what the aims seeks to achieve in terms of smaller
units of learning
2. They provide the basis for the organization of teaching activities
3. They describe learning in terms of observable behavior or
performance
4. They facilitate planning: once objectives have been agreed on,
course planning, materials preparation, textbook selection, and
related processes can begin
5. They provide measureable outcomes and thus provide
accountability given a set of objectives, the success or failure of of
a program to teach the objectives can be measured
6. They are prescriptive: they describe how planning should proceed
and do away with subjective interpretations and personal
opinions.
Besides, Richards (2001:123) also describes that statements of
objectives possess the following characteristics:
1. Objective describes a learning outcome
2. Objective should be consistent with the curriculum aim
3. Objective should be precise and feasible.
Referring to the theoretical point of view about aims and objectives,
this research formulates the course aims and objectives based on the
needs inventory from the students of English education study program.
These syllabus and course materials are specifically designed to meet
the needs of the first semester students in learning speaking through
speaking course one.
The course aims:
a. To help students communicate effectively and confidently in
English by developing the students’ vocabulary, pronunciation,
and basic grammar.
b. To prepare students have a good basic foundation in speaking
which enables them to communicate everyday situations and
topics.

128 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

Course Objectives:
a. Students are able to practice some basic expressions for greeting
and farewell when meeting other people, to introduce themselves
and others, as well as to get and give personal information in
informal situations.
b. Students are able to talk about their families using vocabulary for
family members, able to address basic questions for requesting
information about family members, as well as able to describe and
illustrate family members.
c. Students are able to use appropriate expressions and vocabulary
to tell the time and ask the time in English.
d. Students are able to ask a daily routine of someone they know and
able to talk about their own daily routines
e. Students are able to use appropriate expressions when talking
about chores at home and identify the responsibilities they
normally do at home
f. Students are able to talk about their leisure time and then to
practice speaking about their own free time activities using the
phrases they have learned
g. Students are able to state intention to purchase items, to ask price
of items, and to request correct change when incorrect change is
received
h. Students are able to state clothing needs, including color and size,
and to differentiate sizes by reading tags and tape measure.
i. Students are able to talk about food and to encourage them to
discuss their own preferences and attitudes towards food and
cooking
j. Students are able to use appropriate phrases to express future
plans and able to state and to talk about their ambitions or dreams
for the future
k. Students are able to identify kinds of jobs, to talk about jobs by
asking someone what they do for a living (job) and answering
someone if they ask, and to give a description of jobs and where
they work

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 129

B. The Development Phase
After the course aims and objectives are stipulated in the
preliminary phase, a number of different activities of planning and
developing a set of instructional rules have to carry out. There are three
major activities conducted in this phase i.e. selecting syllabus contents,
planning the course structure and developing teaching materials.

1. Selecting Syllabus Content

In this section, the selection of syllabus content is conducted by
selecting the major topics and determines the order in which the topics
will be presented in the classroom. Needs analysis and consultation
with teachers have been carried out to obtain an initial list of course
topics. As Richards (2001: 148) states that information gathered during
needs analysis contributes to the planning of course content, as do
additional ideas from other resources such as available literature on
the topic, published materials on the topics, review similar courses
offered elsewhere, review test or exams in the area, analysis of the
students’ problems, consultation with teachers familiar with the topics,
as well as consultation with specialists in the area. The results of the
needs analysis and consultation with lecturers could then list the
following twelve initial topics that would be included in a course on
speaking one for the students at the English education study program.
1) Classroom (3.55 = very important)
2) Cooking and food (3.53 = very important)
3) Days &daily routine (3.51 = very important)
4) Future (3.48 = important)
5) Meeting people (3.48 = important)
6) Work chores (3.48 = important)
7) Occupation (3.45 = important)
8) Money (3.34 = important)
9) Time (3.32 = important)
10) Clothes &color (3.31= important)
11) Free time (3.29 = important)
12) Family (3.28 = important)

130 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

 However, the list of the initial topics above needs refining by
considering course aims and objectives, the importance of the initial
topics, the students’ knowledge, and the allotted time to teach the
topics. Richards (2001: 149) suggest that when the list of the initial
topics has to be reviewed or refined and the following questions need
to be asked:
a. Are all the suggested topics necessary?
b. Have any important topics omitted?
c. Is there sufficient time to cover them?
d. Has sufficient priority been given to the most important areas
e. Has enough emphasis been put on the different aspects of the
areas identified?
f. Will the areas covered enabled students to attain the learning
outcomes?
At the English education study program, speaking course one is
recognized as a two (2) credit course which is normally taught within
14 sessions according to the following descriptions:
a. Session one: course preview and learning contract 1
b. Session two to six: teaching the materials 5
c. Session seven: mid-term test 1
d. Session eight to thirteen: teaching the materials 6
e. Session fourteen: final test 1
Total 14

Referring to the descriptions, eleven topics are selected and rearrange

in a logical order after having consultation with teachers familiar with
the topics and one topic is skipped that is ‘classroom’ since the teachers
consider that the students already have sufficient knowledge of it. The
consultation discussed how and why the topics have to be organized
that way which resulted in the following types of contents.
1. Meeting people
2. Family
3. Time
4. Daily routines
5. Cooking and food

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 131

6. Work chores
7. Free time
8. Clothes &color
9. Shopping and Money
10. Future
11. Occupation
According to Richards (2001:150), sequencing of content in the course
can be determined based on the following criteria:
a. Simple to complex: content presented earlier is taught to be
simpler than later items.
b. Chronology: content is sequenced according to the order in which
events occur in the real world.
c. Need: content is sequenced according to when learners are most
likely to need it outside of the classroom.
d. Prerequisite learning: the sequence of content reflects what is
necessary at one point as a foundation for the next step in the
learning process.
e. Whole to part or part to whole: in some cases, material at the
beginning of a course may focus on the overall structure or
organization of a topic before considering the individual
components that make it up. Alternatively, the course focuses on
practicing the parts before the whole.
f. Spiral sequencing: the recycling of items to ensure that learners
have repeated opportunities to learn them.
The decision about the course content which has been sequenced
as presented above is determined based on ‘need’ criteria because the
topics are organized in order of importance to the students’ needs in
personal and social lives. Besides, the topics are also sequenced by
taking into account the logical relationships from one to the other
topics according to a theme or storyline as stated by one of lectures of
speaking courses in the consultation between the writer and her.
Topik-topik yang diajarkan di mata kuliah speaking satu sebaiknya
disusun berdasarkan kebutuhan mahasiswa, berangkat dari
kebutuhan untuk membicarakan sesuatu yang terkait dengan diri
mereka sendiri seperti bagaimana memperkenalkan diri,
kemudian mengenal dan meperkenalkan anggota keluarganya,

132 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

 menceritakan tentang kebiasaan mereka sehari-hari secara
pribadi, menjelaskan tentang tanggugjawabnya di dalam keluarga,
menceritakan tentang kegiatan yang dilakukan di waktu luang di
lingkungan keluarga diluar lingkungan keluarga, kemudian
kebutuhan berinteraksi dengan lingkungan diluar rumah misalnya
berbelanja, kebutuhan untuk menyampaikan rencana-rencana
dimasa yang akan datang misalnya akan melanjutkan kuliah atau
bekerja., serta kebutuhan membicarakan tentang jenis-jenis
pekerjaan dan pekerjaan yang diinginkan.
(The topics presented in speaking course one should be sequenced
based on the students’ needs, starting from the needs of talking
something associated with their personal lives such as how to
introduce themselves to others, the next acknowledging and
introducing their family members, talking about their daily routines
and responsibilities at home in their family, talking about the leisure
time activities they do indoor and outdoor to talking about the needs
in interacting with other people outside such as shopping, talking
about their future plans to the others e.g. pursuing their advanced
study or looking for a job, as well as the needs of telling the others
about the types of jobs they want). (Interview, December 6, 2013).
In addition, the logical sequence of the topics above is then linked with
the grammar items selected according to the grammatical demands of
each topic to be taught and practice altogether in the classroom
interactions. It can be illustrated as follows:

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 133

mmavh,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,bsghfasgvbzXBasdjkvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

134 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

2. Planning Course Structure (Designing Syllabus)
The next stage in course development is to map the logical
sequence of course structure into a syllabus design as a fundamental
instrument for teaching effectively. The idea of designing syllabus of the
course can be initiated by selecting a syllabus framework which
normally has closed relationship to developing instructional materials
based on the formulated syllabus framework. However, presenting the
theories of the syllabus framework commonly employed in language
teaching is not the focus of this part since the theories have been
explained in the previous part of this book.
Referring to the results of needs analysis in learning English
specifically speaking skills for the students at the English education
study program, this design uses integrated or mixed syllabus
framework as an alignment of three different types of syllabus. It is
expected that the syllabus framework can be a comprehensive and
helpful cornerstone for effective learning and teaching in the speaking
course one at the college. As Krahnke (1987: 75) concludes that:
For almost all instructional programs, it is clear that some
combination of types of instructional content will be needed to
address the complex goal of the program…for most general
teaching applications, whose goal is functional ability in broadly
defined settings and structural knowledge and communicative
ability in specific situations, a combination of functional,
structural, situational, and skill based instruction is the probable
choice. On the other hand, in some second language teaching
settings, skills and tasks can be more narrowly specified,
instructional resources and richer, or specific structural or formal
knowledge is not required by the program for students to succeed
and a combination of task-based, skill-based, situational,
functional, and context instruction may be chosen.
The course design in this study is called an integrated or a mixed
syllabus since it combines three types of syllabus i.e. topical or content-
based syllabus, structural syllabus, as well as competency-based
syllabus. The alignment of the three types of syllabus is determined to
satisfy the linguistic needs and the learning needs of the students to
learn to speak on speaking course one at the English education study
program of STAIN Parepare.

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 135

 Topical or content-based syllabus refers to a type of syllabus
which is organized around themes, topics or other units of content. The
starting point of this syllabus type is more emphasized on topics or
content rather than grammar, function, or situation in syllabus design.
Richards (2001: 158) identifies the advantages of courses based on
content-based syllabuses as follows:
a. They facilitate comprehension.
b. Content makes linguistic form more meaningful.
c. Content serves as the best basis for teaching the skill area.
d. They address students’ needs
e. They motivate learners.
f. They allow integration of the four skills.
g. They allow for use authentic materials.
Conclusively, topic-based syllabuses have often been a feature of ESL or
EFL program in many language institutions which are used in
developing speaking materials.
Structural syllabus refers to a type of syllabus that is organized
around grammatical items. Here, grammar items are mapped out
together with potential lessons content in the form of topics, skills, and
activities. According to Richards (2001: 153), grammar is decided to be
taken into account in the syllabus design, besides it still remains a core
component of many language courses, for some reasons i.e.
a. Teaching language through its grammar represents a familiar
approach to teaching for many people. In many parts of the world,
teachers and students expect to see a grammar stand in a course
and react negatively to its absence.
b. Grammar provides a convenient framework for a course in which
grammar can readily be linked to other strands of a syllabus such
as topics, functions, or situations.
c. Grammar represents a core component of language proficiency in
which communicative ability includes the ability to use grammar
and therefore deserves a place in the curriculum.
For the reason, grammatical syllabuses continue to be widely employed
in language teaching. However, today’s grammar syllabus seems to be
one component of an integrated syllabus rather than as the sole basis
for a syllabus.

136 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

 Competency-based syllabus refers to a type of syllabus which is
organized based on a specification of the competencies that students
are expected to master in relation to specific situation and activities.
Competencies are a description of the essential skills, knowledge, and
attitudes required for effective performance of particular tasks or
activities. Richards (2001:159) stated that a curriculum can be
organized according to topics and competencies in which curriculum’s
language competencies are divided into topics and cross-topics areas. A
topic refers to the context where language is used. For example, the
competency “report basic household problems” is found in the topic
“housing”. A cross-topic is a topic which can occur in other topic areas.
For example, the competency “read and write dates” from the cross-
topic “time and dates” also occurs in the topics ”shopping” (reading
expiration dates of food), “health” (reading appointment times),
“banking and bills” (reading the date due on bills).
The framework of the course design on speaking course one for
the students at the English education study program by using the
integrated syllabus can be seen in the following table.

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 137

 Table 18 The syllabus design of speaking course one for the
English education study program

138 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 139
140 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching
Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 141
142 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching
Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 143
144 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching
Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 145
146 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching
Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 147
Source: Kaharuddin (2014:285-295)

148 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

 The syllabus design of the speaking course one that has been
developed above illustrates the distribution of content throughout the
course in terms of scope and sequence of the course in which scope is
associated with the breadth and depth of coverage of items in the
course, while sequence of content connotes determining which content
is needed earlier in the course as the basis for things that will be learnt
later. The syllabus design contains syllabus preview which should be
given at the beginning of the program. This section provides the
students detailed information on the syllabus aims and objectives, the
materials, activities, as well as the learning facilities that the students
may need throughout the lessons in each unit. All topics provided in
each unit items are used as instructional materials in teaching speaking
course one for the students of the English education study program.

3. Developing Instructional Materials

So far, the writers have already discussed the processes employed
to make decisions about the aims and the objectives of the course, the
content of the course as well as its syllabus design. Another important
thing to do next is to develop instructional materials of speaking course
one. Following the procedures of developing the course materials in
this section, there are three main procedures to do i.e.
1. Mapping out the course in terms of sections or instructional
blocks. Instructional block represents the instructional focus of the
course which may be very specific in a single lesson or more
general in a unit of work consisting of several lessons. The
representation of the instructional block can be initially made by
writing a lesson plan ss a road map for a class session.
2. Composing the instructional materials or text book for the course
based on the stipulated lesson plans.
3. Getting experts of English Language Teaching (ELT) to review the
prototype of the developed instructional materials.
a. Lesson Plans of Speaking Course one
As the matter of fact, a lesson plan in a language program
functions to identify the learning destination (objective of the lesson)
and to mark out the route (activities for each stage of the lesson). It is

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 149

an aid for a teacher to plan his teaching strategies effectively.
Therefore, a well-prepared teacher should write down the details of
each activity in the form of lesson plans which will guide the
interactions between the teacher and students in implementing how
detailed a lesson plan needs to be. Brown (2001: 149-152) proposes six
essential elements of a lesson plan should be namely;
1. Goals
2. Objectives
3. Materials and equipments
4. Procedures
5. Evaluation
6. Extra-class work.
Determining a plan for teaching will keep both teachers and learners
focused on where they are going, how they are going to get there, and
what to achieve when they arrive.
The syllabus design above is then used as a guideline to write
lesson plans for speaking course one. The entire lesson plans required
for the course have completely been compiled which have finally
resulted in eleven lesson plans for eleven units and topics. The eleven
lesson plans have been written separately from the discussion in this
section. However, the writers can illustrate the general description of
speaking course and one sample of the lesson plans i.e. the lesson plan
of Unit Two: My Family, as follow.

150 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 151
 The framework of the course design on speaking course one for
the students at the English education study program by using the
integrated syllabus can be seen in the following table.

152 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 153
154 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching
b. Instructional Materials for Speaking Course One
Materials here refers to anything (e.g. linguistic, visual, and
auditory) which can be used to facilitate the learning of a language, to
inform learners about the language, to provide experience of the
language in use, and to help the learners to discover the language for
themselves. The instructional materials in this section are developed
based on the needs analysis results which have previously been
transformed into syllabus and lesson plans. The organizational
structures of the instructional materials for this study are planned by
units in which each unit represents a topic and consists of three
lessons. The lessons are identified as lesson A: Skill Getting, lesson B:
Skill Using, and lesson C: Review.
Lesson A: Skill Getting is aimed at preparing and equipping the
students with specific elements of knowledge which compose
communicative ability for later communication. Therefore, this lesson
presents knowledge of linguistic forms that the students need to be
able to speak English in a certain topic such as vocabulary and
pronunciation drills. After the students equip with the linguistic forms,
they have to take a part in pair practice which is aimed at linking
between the language forms being learnt (vocabulary and
pronunciation) and their potential usage in communication.
In addition, lesson B: Skill Using makes effort to bridge the gap
between the students’ knowledge of linguistic forms and the ability to
talk about a particular topic. There are two sub activities in this lesson
i.e. functional communication and social interaction activities.
Functional communication activity shows how the vocabulary and
expressions being learnt function in real conversations. This lesson
gives a particular real life situation with specific language structure,
vocabulary, as well as pronunciation that the students may use in a real
conversation when talking about a particular topic. Besides, social
interaction activity gives the students opportunity to use their
knowledge of linguistics forms in a half dialogue role play. This lesson
enables the students to be involved in a social interaction of a particular
topic by using the previous equipped language forms.
On the other hand, lesson C: Review is aimed at measuring how
much the students have learnt in a certain given unit. This lesson

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 155

provides three sub activities i.e. language game, grammar presentation,
and extra class work. Language game requires the students to show off
their language creativity in speaking naturally and enable them to
interact spontaneously in a conversation. Grammar presentation is
given to help the students understand a particular language form that
they have used in the previous communicative activities e.g. in pair
practice, functional communication activities. The teacher needs to
focus on explaining a particular rule of a language structure and
evaluates all the students have learnt by giving extra class work that is
grammar exercises to do at home. The sample of the instructional
materials can be exemplified as follow:

156 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 157
158 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching
Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 159
160 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching
Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 161
 FgvajKLG

162 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 163
164 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching
Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 165
166 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching
Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 167
c. Instructional Materials Review by the Experts
Before implementing the developed teaching materials in the
classrooms, it is essential that the teaching materials be reviewed by
the experts. The review is carried out to make sure that the teaching
materials have been well developed and ready to use according to the
experts’ judgments. As an illustration of the review process in this part,
there are two important steps to do i.e. identifying the expert ELT
teachers, providing instruments to review and to validate the prototype
of developed teaching materials.
- Identifying the Expert ELT Teachers
In identifying expert ELT teachers, it is first of all very important
to know the attributes of expert ELT teachers. According to Richards
and Farrell (2005: 7) expert ELT teachers tend to share the following
characteristics which have set them different from inexperienced
teachers:
• A rich and elaborate knowledge base
• Ability to integrate and use different kinds of knowledge
• Ability to make intuitive judgments based on past experience
• Desire to investigate and solve a wide range of teaching problems
• Deeper understanding of students’ needs and student learning
• Awareness of instructional objectives to support teaching
• Better understanding and use of language learning strategies
• Greater awareness of the learning context
• Greater fluidity and automaticity in teaching
• Greater efficiency and effectiveness in lesson planning
Taking into account the characteristics of expert teachers just as
mentioned above, expert ELT teachers might then be defined as those
who have taught English for many years, have rich knowledge of
language teaching, are able to know students’s needs and adapt the
needs with instructional objectives as well as teaching materials, know
how to manage their lessons and classrooms effectively to enhance
students’ learning outcomes.
In order to review the prototype of teaching materials, two
lecturers are selected by taking into account the fulfillment of the
characteristics of expert ELT teachers as mentioned earlier. They are a

168 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

senior English lecturer of English Education Department at UIN
Alauddin Makassar who has been teaching English over 15 years and
has got her Master degree in TESOL from Victoria University,
Melbourne, Australia, and an English Lecturer who has been teaching
for over 10 years and graduated from doctorate program specializing in
English education.
- Reviewing and Validating the Prototype of the Teaching
Materials
After selecting the expert ELT teachers, we come to the review
process of the teaching materials. It was carried out by giving an
instrument employed to review the components of the teaching
materials i.e. contents, language focus, activities, as well as
supplementary materials of the teaching materials. The instrument is in
the form of checklist containing questions and spaces for comments.
The checklist needs to be completed by selecting one of five option
categories namely; 4=very good, 3=good, 2=sufficient, 1=bad, and
0=very bad.
In this part, the expert ELT teachers’ entire responses to the
questions in the given checklist are analyzed by using a scale which
consist of scores range from 0 (zero) to 4 (four). For the purpose of
quantifying the indicators by using the scale, a set of criteria is used
which is adapted from the ones formulated by Sudiyono (2003). The
criteria provides some information about score range, qualitative
descriptions, as well as follow up decision as illustrated in the following
table:

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 169

 Table 3.4. Guideline for reviewing the teaching materials

The quality of the developed teaching materials is dtermined by taking

into account the total scrore average of the checklist based on the
responses given by the two experts. The total average score is then
interpreted by using the qualitative description as stated in the table
above. The result of the qualitative description has resulted into a
follow up before implementing the teaching materials whether or not
the teaching materials need revision.
The review was carried out once in which both experts reviewed
and validated the entire selected teaching materials in different times
and places. The responses of the two experts’ review toward the
teaching materials, their descriptions, as well as the follow up
categories are analyzed in the following table.

170 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

Table 19 The results of the teaching materials review

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 171

Source: Kaharuddin (2014:197-198)

Comments:
The data from the table above indicate that based on the two
experts’ perspectives, the samples of teaching materials for
speaking course one seem to be relevant to the students’ needs
and level in terms of lessons sequences, topics selection,
vocabulary and language focus (grammar), language functions,
and language activities. The analysis of the two experts’ responses
resulted in the total average score 3.92 which means ‘very good’
and the follow up is ‘no revision needed’.

172 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

 Supporting information:
Furthermore, the two experts also gave their comments associated
with the teaching materials. The first expert gave the following
comments:
a. The lessons in each topic are sequenced in a good ordered
because they are generally organized from general to specific,
from easy to difficult, as well as from simple to complex.
b. The materials in each lesson will be very helpful to develop
the students’ speaking skill such as the vocabulary snapshot
and the pronunciation drills.
c. The communicative activities will be very interesting to the
students because they are equipped with pictures, cards,
handouts, games.
On the other hand the second expert commented the teaching
materials like:
a. The lessons really cover the students’ needs in speaking such
as vocabulary, pronunciation, and grammar.
b. The activities are very attractive for example pair practice,
role play, and language games.
c. The materials will be rather difficult to be implemented by
the other English teachers in the classrooms without a special
training for teaching the materials.
Conclusions:
The facts as presented above illustrate that the teaching materials’
drafts are then ready to be used for teaching speaking skill in the
class of speaking course one which is specifically taught at the
English education study program.

C. The Review Phase

It has already been stated in the previous chapter of this book that
Review Phase deals with the process of describing the outcomes of
trying out the developed course content (e.g. syllabus and teaching

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 173

materials). Therefore, this phase should be carried out in two steps i.e.
Implementing the instructional materials in the classroom and
Evaluating the outcomes of learning. The following discussions provide
detailed clarifications of both steps.

1. Implementing the Instructional Materials in the Classroom

In this implementation step, three topics are randomly selected among
the eleven topics of the developed teaching materials namely: ‘My
family, Cooking and food, as well as Future plans’ (The sample of the
lessons is available in the section of the development phase). The three
topics are selected to be tried out in the classroom in order to use them
as examples of the implementation procedures in the review phase. It is
important to know that each topic is implemented in two general
sections with special time allotment and procedures for each.
Section One
Procedures/activities: (60 minutes)
1. The teacher introduces the topic which is going to be the focus
that is ‘The family’ and explains the importance of recognizing
information on family members (5 minutes)
2. The teacher explains phrases and vocabulary required to talk
about family such as nuclear family and extended family members,
etc. (10 minutes)
3. The teacher gets the students to listen to the audio recording of
the phrases and vocabulary to know how they are pronounced in
English. (5 minutes)
4. After having the students listen, the teacher has them repeat all
the speaker says to practice pronouncing each phrase and
vocabulary. (5 minutes)
5. The students are then split to sit in pairs for having skill getting
activity that is interview to practice talking about family life. (15
minutes)
6. To make the students able to use the phrases and the vocabulary
in real life, the students are asked to listen to a conversation
between two people who are talking about their families. (5
minutes).

174 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

7. After listening, the teacher explains expressions and vocabulary in
the conversation. (5 minutes)
8. The students are then split in several groups of two to practice
speaking creatively by using expressions and vocabulary of
meeting new people in role play activity. (10 minutes)
Section Two
Evaluation (20 minutes)
To determine whether the objectives of this course have been
accomplished, language game is given to the students such as ‘Find
someone who owns the handout’, ‘Board Game’, etc. The game ‘Find
someone who owns the handout’ is normally carried out using the
following procedures:
1. All the students’ completed handouts are collected and distributed
at random.
2. Make sure that the students do not recognize the owners of the
handouts they are holding
3. The students circulate and try to find the owners of the handouts
by addressing questions of the half-dialogue role play e.g. would
you mind telling me about your family?
4. They need to match the answers they hear from their interlocutors
with the answers in their handouts.
5. If their interlocutors’ answers do not match with the answers on
the handouts, then the students should continue to walk around
asking the other students to search for the owners of the
handouts.
6. As the students find the students who are suspected to be the
owners of the handouts, they have to ask the students e.g. is this
your handout.
7. If the students being asked say e.g. yes, it’s mine, they then need to
put their names and signatures on the handouts as an evidence
that the students have succeeded in finding out the owners of the
handouts.

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 175

The implementation of the course contents took place for three days
successively by involving fifteen students from the first semester at the
English education study program. The implementation is also aimed at
examining the effect of the instructional materials on increasing the
targeted students’ communicative competence after going through the
try out procedures. Therefore, evaluation is administered immediately
after the implementation step is done.

2. Evaluating the Outcomes of Learning

In this evaluation phase, summative evaluation is used for
evaluating the effect of teaching the course contents to the targeted
groups as the results of implementing the syllabusdesign and the
instructional materials. Summative evaluation refers to checking of
what has been learned at a specific point in time i.e. at the end of a unit,
or course. It is based on cumulative learning experiences, tests for
achievement, and mastery of specific performance objectives. The
evaluation procedures are adapted from Kirkpatrick’s (1996) four level
models of summative evaluation which can be described as follow:
Level 1: Reactions
The first level of evaluation was conducted by assessing fifteen
students’ reactions or attitudes after learning with the teaching
materials. The instruments used in this level were questionnaires with
likert scale and open questions. The students were required to fill in the
given questionnaires by selecting one of seven optional categories i.e. 1
= strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = slightly disagree; 4 = neutral; 5 =
slightly agree; 6 = agree; and 7 = strongly agree. These categories were
used to determine the students’ perceptions toward the
implementation of the teaching materials which were specified into
positive, neutral, and negative attitudes as illustrated below:

176 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

 After that the students are required to provide their answers on
five questions which have something to do with their options in the
questionnaires. The given questionnaires contain a variety of questions
to find out the students’ reactions toward their learning experiences
and to evaluate the content, the language focus, the activities, the
supplementary materials, as well as the illustration of the selected
teaching materials after being implemented in the classroom. The
results of the questionnaire analysis can be clarified in the following
tables:

Table 20 The students’ attitudes towards the teaching materials’

contents

Source: Kaharuddin (2014:202)

Comments:
Falling back on the data presented in table 20, it is found that
fourteen out of fifteen students (93.33%) agree that the teaching
materials cover a variety of topics and situations that are
appropriate to their level and needs in which ‘agree’ level is the
most preferred option about 60% (9 out of 15 students). In

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 177

 addition, thirteen out of fifteen students (86.66%) considered that
the themes and topics are relevant to them. Besides, all students
(100%) felt that the materials give them more opportunity to
practice speaking in which ten out of fifteen students (66.66%)
selected ‘strongly agree’ level and the rest is in ‘agree’ options.
Supporting information:
With regard to the positive attitude, some respondents also
provided their opinions about the content of the teaching
materials as follow:
R. 009)
Menurut saya, topiknya sangat menarik dan sesuai dengan
tingkatan dan kebutuhan belajar saya. Dan lagi materinya
mendorong kami untuk belejar lebih keras.
(I think the topics are very interesting and appropriate to our level
and needs. In addition, the materials give us motivation to study
harder).
R. 014)
Menurut saya, topic dan materinya sangat menarik dan sangat
membantu saya dalam meningkatkan kemampuan saya berbicara
dalam bahasa Inggris.
(In my opinion, the topics and the materials are very interesting
and helpful to improve my speaking skills in English).
Conclusions:
Therefore, we can then say that the students’ attitude toward the
teaching materials’ contents is positive. This statement is drawn
up based on the results of the data analysis as described above.
The next discussion deals with the analysis of the students’
attitudes towards the language items (i.e. vocabulary, pronunciation,
and grammar) of the teaching materials which can be seen in the
following table:

178 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

Table 21 The students’ attitudes towards the language items given
in the teaching materials

Source: Kaharuddin (2014:204)

Comments:
As shown at table 21, all students (100%) involved in the try out
using the designed teaching materials have positive attitude
towards the language items (i.e. vocabulary, pronunciation, and
grammar) given in the teaching materials. Eight out of fifteen
students (53,33%) chose ‘strongly agree’ option to describe that
the language functions, language focus, vocabulary, and grammar
items are appropriate to their level. In addition, they commonly
felt (e.g. 9 out of 15 students or about 60% agree) that there’s an
attempt to bring in vocabulary, pronunciation and grammar
relevant to their needs.

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 179

 Supporting information:
In terms of language items, all respondents described that
vocabulary, pronunciation, and grammar items in the teaching
materials are easy to be understood. In vocabulary lesson for
instance, eight out of fifteen students (53,33%) strongly agreed to
state that the vocabulary lesson is easy to be understood while 6
students (40%) agreed and 1 student (6,66%) slightly agreed.
Besides, pronunciation lesson is also felt easy to be understood by
the respondents in this try out. Nine out of fifteen (60%) students
felt strongly agree to state that the pronunciation lesson is easy to
be understood. One of the respondents gave her opinion about the
language items available in the teaching materials as follows:
R. 010)
Mempelajari pengucapan adalah hal yang sangat penting dalam
belajar speaking karena kalau kita bisa mengucapkan kosa kata
dengan baik, hal itu akan memudahkan orang lain mengerti
bahasa Inggris kita.
(Learning pronunciation is a very important thing in learning
speaking because being able to pronoun vocabulary appropriately
will enable other people understand our English easily)
Except for that, it is also essential to find out the students’ attitude
towards the activities and the tasks available in the teaching materials
prototype such as the pair practice, the role play, and the games given.
The students’ reactions to the activities of the given teaching materials
can be described in the table below:

180 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

 Table 22 The students’ attitudes towards the activities and tasks

Source: Kaharuddin (2014:206)

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 181

 Comments:
As presented in the table above, it is obviously seen that the
attitude of the entire students (100%) towards the activities and
the tasks given in the teaching materials of this study was positive.
They were of the opinion that the activities and tasks are
interesting to them in which eight out of fifteen students (53,33%)
agree and seven out of fifteen students (46.66%) strongly agree
with the statement. Besides, they also felt that the activities and
task given in the try out suitable for their level and needs (10 out
of 15 students or about 66,66%).
Supporting information:
The learning activities like pair practice, role play, and games were
considered very interesting to the students as stated by one of the
respondents.
R. 006)
Saya rasa, kegiatan-kegiatan belajar seperti berbicara
berpasangan, bermain peran dan permainan bahasa yang
diberikan di dalam meteri ini sangat menarik dan sangat
membantu dalam meningkatkan penguasaan kosa kata,
pengucapan dan tata bahasa karena kita mempelajarinya dengan
cara yang sangat menyenangkan.
(In my opinion, the activities such as pair practice, role play and
games given in the teaching materials are very interesting and
very helpful to the progress of our vocabulary mastery,
pronunciation and grammar understanding because we learn the
items in fun ways).
Conclusions:
Learning with interesting and appropriate teaching materials to
the students’ level and needs have resulted in developing their
English fluency and accuracy in which eight out of fifteen students
(53,33%) agree and seven out of fifteen students (46.66%)
strongly agree with the statement. In addition, the students
describe that the instructions for the activities and tasks are

182 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

 simple and clear (12 out of 15 students or about 80%) as indicated
in the above table.
Aside from things described previously, it is also important to see
the students’ attitude towards the supplementary materials provided in
the prototypes of the teaching materials e.g. the native English speakers
audio recording, the handouts, and the pictures. The data analysis used
to describe the thing can be found out in the following table:
Table 23 The students’ attitudes towards the supplementary
materials

Source: Kaharuddin (2014:208)

Comments:
Referring to the data presented above, we see that the entire
respondents in this section (100%) think that the teaching
materials implemented in the classroom provided tapes for
pronunciation practices and listening comprehension (9 out of 15
students or 60% agree and 5 out of 15 or 33,33% strongly agree),
handouts (9 out of 15 students or 60% agree, and 5 out of 15 or
33,33% strongly agree), as well as source of authentic materials

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 183

 e.g. real-life pictures (8 out of 15 students or 53,33% agree and 6
out of 15 student or 40% strongly agree).
Supporting information:
As for the students the supplementary materials given in the
teaching materials are very helpful to improve their speaking skill.
One of the students comments:
R. 009)
Saya rasa semua materinya menarik dan sangat membantu saya
dalam meningkatkan kemampuan saya berbicara. Materi yang
diberikan saling berkaitan dan sesuai apa yang saya butuhkan.
Misalnya ketika kita belajar satu topik, kita mempelajari kosa
katanya dulu dimana kita belajar pengucapan dari rekaman suara
native speaker, kemudian kita diberikan kegiatan berbicara untuk
mempraktekkan kosa kata yang kita sudah pelajari dalam
percakapan.
(I think, the entire materials are interesting and really helpful to
improve my speaking skills. The materials are interconnected to
one another and suitable for my learning needs. For example, as
we are learning a certain topic, we firstly learn the vocabulary in
which the vocabulary is learnt through pronunciation practice
from the recording of native English speakers’ voice, then we are
given handouts to practice the vocabulary in conversation)
Conclusions:
The analysis of the data related to the students’ reactions to the
teaching materials as presented above has been the basis to draw
a conclusion that the students have positive reactions to the
contents, the language items, the activities and the supplementary
materials of the prototypes of the teaching materials in the
classroom. This positive attitude is conveyed due to the speaking
skill improvement felt by the students after learning with the
teaching materials. The students’ opinions about their
improvement in speaking after learning with the teaching
materials can be illustrated as follow:
R. 005)

184 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

 Setelah saya belajar dengan materi yang diberikan, saya merasa
bahwa kemampuan berbicara saya mengalami peningkatan
karena penguasaan kosa kata saya meningkat, semua materinya
juga sangat menarik dan memotivasi saya untuk memperlancar
kemampuan saya dalam berbahasa Inggris.
(After learning with the teaching materials, I think that my
speaking skill gets improvement due to the progress of my
vocabulary mastery. The entire activities are also very interesting
and able to motivate me to practice my speaking skills in English).
R. 015)
Menurut saya, kemampuan berbicara saya meningkat
dibandingkan dengan sebelumnya setelah saya belajar dengan
materi yang diberikan meskipun belajarnya hanya 3 hari. Dan
materi yang paling membantu saya adalah percakapan dalam role
play dan game.
(In my mind, my speaking skills get improvement (in comparison
to my previous skills) after learning with the teaching materials
for three sessions. And the most helpful activities are
conversations with role play and games).
Conclusively, the students’ positive attitude to the teaching
materials is much affected by the advantages that the students achieve
after being taught with the instructions of the designed speaking course
one syllabus. The advantages are mostly felt in the progress of the
students’ vocabulary mastery and the students’ speaking fluency. The
positive achievements in the students’ speaking skills take place since
the materials are felt motivating, interesting and suitable for the
students’ level and needs.
Level 2: Learning
After identifying the students’ attitude toward the implementation
of the teaching materials in the classroom, the second evaluation type is
to measure what the students have learnt from the presented materials
by comparing their performance before and after receiving the
instructions. Giving test is considered to be very effective to
demonstrate that learning has occurred as a result of the instruction

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 185

(Dick, 2000: 149). Therefore, it is very important to clarify the process
of giving the test in this section.
Harris (2002:81) is of the opinion that speaking is a complex skill
to be tested since it requires the simultaneous use of a number of
different abilities such as pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, fluency,
as well as comprehension. Hence, as we talk about testing speaking, it
must deal with testing the five speech components (i.e. pronunciation,
grammar, vocabulary, fluency, as well as comprehension) altogether.
The type of oral production test used in this study falls into ‘the oral
interview’. This type of test is recognized as a valid and reliable test to
measure how well a person speaks a language. Heaton (1991:97) even
claims that the oral interview appears to offer a realistic means of
assessing the total oral skills (i.e. pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary,
fluency, and comprehension) in a ‘natural’ speech situation.
The oral interview here can be illustrated as a live conversation
between an interviewer (e.g. a teacher or a native English speaker as an
external rater) and the students. Through a series of carefully
structured questions (started from asking Yes/No questions followed
by certain Wh-questions) over a certain topic, a sample of speech is
elicited and rated against the proficiency levels. To elicit the students’
speech productions, the interviewers address eleven types of questions
on the selected topics earlier among other things: My Family, Cooking
and Food, as well as Future Plans. The questions are exemplified as
follows:
- Do you live with your family?
- Would you mind telling me about your family?
- Can you describe the people in your family? Like, what’s your mother
like, and your father, and your brother and sister?
- How would you describe your father and your mother physical
appearance?
- Do you have favorite food?
- What type of food do you eat most often?
- How does it taste?
- Do you cook the food yourself? Why?
- Do you have hopes and dreams for the future?
- What do you hope to achieve in the future? Tell me at least two things.
- Why do you want to achieve those things?

186 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

The eleven questions above serve as a test instrument for both pre and
post tests which are developed based on the following reasons:
1. The questions focus on the primary course objectives.
2. The questions are basically the concepts or the knowledge that are
sufficiently covered in the three units.
The students’ speech samples are then scored by utilizing a set of rating
scale criteria which is proposed by Heaton (1991:100) as illustrated in
the following table:
Table 24 Interviewer’s Rating Scale for Speaking Skills Test

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 187

The scores results gathered from the interviewers should finally be
analyzed by using a scale system from a score range one (1) to eighteen
(18). For the purpose of providing qualitative description of the score
range, a set of criteria is then adapted from the one set up by Heaton
(1991:145). In the criteria, the scores together with their score range as
well as qualitative description are provided as shown in the following
table:
Table 25 A guideline for evaluating the students’ speaking skills

Source: Kaharuddin (2014:99)

In this level of evaluation, the oral interview was carried out twice.
This is done to see how effective the treatment able to increase the
students’ communicative competence. Therefore, the effectiveness of
the course content try out can be measured by comparing the students’
gain score in the test given at the beginning of the class (pre-test) with
their score in the test given at the end (post-test). The differences noted
between the first (pre-test) and the last measurements (post-test) on
the dependant variable are then attributed to the influence of
independent variable (Babbie, 1986:182).
The pre-test and the post-test here are administered by using the
following procedures:
1. The interviewers prepare a series questions on three topics i.e. my
family, cooking and food, as well as future plans.

188 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

2. The students are then interviewed in pairs or even threes to put
them more at ease and relaxed atmosphere through the presence
of a friend or a classmate.
3. The interviewer then lead in to the interview by first of all asking a
Yes/No questions, followed at some stage or other by certain Wh-
questions.
4. The students are required to reply the question in a natural speech
situation.
5. The students’ speech is then scored in the rating scale sheet.
In addition, the data of the tests have to go through normality test
to ensure whether or not the data are normally distributed. The effects
of the instructions are then measured by using dependent sample t-test.
This is done to find out if the t-test scores of experimental group are
significantly higher than the t-table scores. To facilitate the score
analysis, SPSS software version 21.0 can be used.
- The Results of Pre-Test
In describing the pre-test, there are some important items need to be
clarified among other things:
- The number of participants involved in the test,
- The precise schedule of the test such as time, day, date, month, and
year.
- The place where the test is taking place.
- The number of reviewers involved in the test.
- The duration of the test.
So, the pre-test description for this book can be explained by
stating: the first oral interview test was given to fifteen (15) students
one day before teaching the students using the developed teaching
materials that is on December 10, 2013 in the afternoon from 4.00 to
6.00 in room N 5 of Tarbiyah building at STAIN Parepare. Three
interviewers involved in testing the fifteen students. They consisted of
two English lecturers of STAIN Parepare and another was a native
English speaker from USA. The oral interview lasted for about two
hours in which the oral production of each student was scored
immediately after the oral interview. The scores range from 1 to 6 given
to the students’ speaking skills covered three speaking components i.e.

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 189

accuracy, fluency, as well as comprehensibility which are analyzed and
resulted in the information as shown in the following table:
Table 26 The result of pre-test

Source: Kaharuddin (2014:213)

Comments:
Based on the results of pre-test analysis in the table above, it has
been found that the total score of this test ranges from one (1) to
eighteen (18). The highest total score was achieved by respondent
011 with eleven (11) total score. On the other hand, the lowest
total score was achieved by respondent 001 with three (3) total
score. However, .the overall students achieved 7.46 as the average
score for their speaking skills which means that the quality of the
students’ speaking skills is only fair before learning with the
teaching materials.

190 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

 The pre-test was also processed and analyzed by using SPSS which
had eventually resulted in the following pre-test description:

The description of the pre-test can also be seen in the following

statistical histogram which was processed by using SPSS as well.

Figure 2 The pre-test score distribution and frequency

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 191

- The Results of Post-Test
The way of explaining the activities of the post-test is similar to
the pre-test. The explanation can be written this way: this post-test was
administered on Monday, December 16 2013 after the fifteen students
achieved some treatments using the developed teaching materials of
unit two, five, and ten for three days successively. This test was started
from 4.00 to 6.00 in the afternoon in class N.2 of Tarbiyah building at
STAIN Parepare. The test still employed ‘the oral interview test’ with
the same interviewers who tested and scored the fifteen students in the
pre-test. Either the procedures or the teaching materials used in this
second test were the same as those in the pre-test. The analysis of the
oral test results can be indicated in the following table:
Table 27 The result of post-test

Source: Kaharuddin (2014:215)

Discussions:
From the data in table 27, we can see that of 15 subjects who
participated in this study, one student (R. 011) achieved 16 score
as the maximum total score and another student (R. 003) gained 7
score as the minimum total score achieved by the students in this

192 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

 post-test. In all, the result of the post-test scores analysis indicates
that the students have achieved 11.33 as the total average score in
the post-test which means that the quality of the students’
speaking skills after getting treatment using the teaching materials
is good.
The data gathered in the post-test were also processed and
analyzed by using SPSS and the result of the analysis can be illustrated
in the following statistical description:

The description of the post-test data analysis can also be

illustrated by taking a look at the following statistical histogram:

Figure 3 The post-test scores distribution and frequency

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 193

- The Overall Results of Pre-Test and Post-Test
It has previously been stated that the pre- and post-tests are used
to measure knowledge gained from participating in a treatments using
the selected instructional materials which have developed based on the
needs analysis. The pre-test is a set of questions given to participants
before the training begins in order to determine their knowledge level
of the course content. After the completion of the course, participants
are given a post-test to answer the same set of questions. Comparing
participants’ post-test scores to their pre-test scores enables us to see
whether the training was successful in increasing participant
knowledge of the training content. The comparison of the gain scores
between pre-test and post test can be illustrated as follows:
Table 28 Test scores comparison between pre-test and post-test

Source: Kaharuddin (2014:218)

Comments:
The table shows that significant improvement takes place in the
students’ gained score before and after treatment. It means that
the students get improvement in their speaking skills after
learning with the developed teaching materials in this study. The

194 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

 improvement can be measured by taking a look at the minimum
and the maximum scores in the pre-test and the post-test in which
three (3) is the minimum score in the pre-test while seven (7) is
the minimum score in the post-test. Besides, eleven (11) is the
maximum score in the pre-test, while sixteen (16) is the maximum
score in the post-test. In addition, the students’ progress in
learning can also be measured by comparing the students’ gain
score in pre-test 7.46 and the students’ gain score in post-test
11.13. If the two gain scores are taken into account the students’
speaking quality before and after treatment, we may then state
that the quality of the students’ speaking skills increases from fair
to good.
The data in the table above are also processed and analyzed by
using SPSS which result in the presentation of Box Plots. The box plots
enable us to see the significant improvement of the students’ speaking
skills before (pre-test) and after treatment (post test).
Comments:
The table shows that significant improvement takes place in the
students’ gained score before and after treatment. It means that
the students get improvement in their speaking skills after
learning with the developed teaching materials in this study. The
improvement can be measured by taking a look at the minimum
and the maximum scores in the pre-test and the post-test in which
three (3) is the minimum score in the pre-test while seven (7) is
the minimum score in the post-test. Besides, eleven (11) is the
maximum score in the pre-test, while sixteen (16) is the maximum
score in the post-test. In addition, the students’ progress in
learning can also be measured by comparing the students’ gain
score in pre-test 7.46 and the students’ gain score in post-test
11.13. If the two gain scores are taken into account the students’
speaking quality before and after treatment, we may then state
that the quality of the students’ speaking skills increases from fair
to good.
The data in the table above are also processed and analyzed by
using SPSS which result in the presentation of Box Plots. The box plots

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 195

enable us to see the significant improvement of the students’ speaking
skills before (pre-test) and after treatment (post test).

Pre-test Post-test
Figure 4 the comparison between pre-test and post-test scores
distribution

- Assumption Test
Before testing this research hypothesis, it is necessary to test the
sample distribution to find out whether the sample is normal or non-
normal. This test is commonly known as normality test. The normality
tests are aimed at testing all hypothesis tests which test a null against
alternative hypothesis. The result of the normality tests deals with the
statements of hypothesis test namely:
Ho = the null hypothesis
The sample has a normal distribution when significant value is
greater than 0.05 (sig ˃ 0.05).
H1 = the alternative hypothesis
The sample is not normally distributed when significant value is
less than 0.05 (sig ˃ 0.05).
In order to test the normality of sample distribution, this study uses
Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistical test as follows:

196 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

 Comments:
From the table 29, we can obviously see that:
Significant value of the pre-test = 0.577 ˃ 0.05. It means that there
isn’t enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis and we can only
assume the sample is normally distributed.
Significant value of the post-test = 0.873 ˃ 0.05. It means that the
sample is also normally distributed.

- Independent T test
After finding out that the samples of the pre-test and post-test are
normally distributed, the implication of the developed teaching
materials on the students’ speaking skills are tested through the
following hypothesis namely:
Ho = The null hypothesis
The students who learn English through the teaching materials of
speaking course one do not get improvement in their speaking
skills with p-value at α = 0.05 (The treatment has no significant
influence on the students’ speaking skills achievement).

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 197

H1 = The alternative hypothesis
The students who learn English through the teaching materials of
speaking course one get improvement in their speaking skills with
p-value at α = 0.05 (The treatment has significant influence on the
students’ speaking skills achievement).
Generally, if the p-value is below 0.05 (5%), we can reject the null
hypothesis and conclude that the given treatment is effective in which
there is a statistically significant main effect of treatment on student’s
achievement in speaking skills.
In order to test the hypothesis, the independent t-test is then used
to tell us whether we should accept or reject our null hypothesis.
Table 30 Paired Samples T-test

Comments:
With regard to the table above, it is found out that SPSS output for
one sample t-test = 4.709 and sig (2-tailed) = 0.000. This output
reveals that sig = 0.000 ˃ p-value = 0.05. This implies that the
treatment has significant main effect on the students’ speaking
skills achievement. The null hypothesis is therefore rejected.

Level 3: Behavior
This type of evaluation requires the English teachers to be
involved in determining that the students really can use all they have
learnt from the given teaching materials. This level uses questionnaires
given to the a number English lecturers who are teaching English
courses. The main purpose of giving the questionnaires to them is to
review the advantages of implementing the instructional materials. The
questionnaires use likert scale containing a series question to assess

198 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

several aspects of the materials such as the content, the language focus,
the activities, the supplementary materials. To evaluate those things,
the English lecturers are required to fill in the given questionnaires by
selecting one of seven optional categories i.e. 1 = strongly disagree; 2 =
disagree; 3 = slightly disagree; 4 = neutral; 5 = slightly agree; 6 = agree;
and 7 = strongly agree. The results gained from analyzing the lecturers’
responses to the categories are then used to determine the lecturers’
attitudes toward the implementation of the teaching materials specified
into positive, neutral, and negative attitudes. In short, there are three
possible steps to do in this level namely:
- Providing instrument to review the learning outcomes of
implementing the syllabus design
- Getting the English lecturers who have used the teaching materials
to give their perceptions about the learning outcomes that their
students achieve from using the teaching materials
- Analizing the lecturers’ perceptions from the instruments to find
out their attitudes about the advandatages of taeching the
materials in the classrooms.
Hence, the illustration of implementing the three steps can be
exemplified as follows.
Three English lectures took a part to review the learning outcomes
by judging the students’ performance in speaking after teaching the
fifteen students with the prototypes of the teaching materials for three
days. Each English lecturer was responsible for teaching one unit for 90
minutes in one session. Questionnaires were also given to the three
English lecturers (2 lecturers of speaking subjects and 1 lecturer of
listening subject) to review the advantages of the instructional
materials. The results of the questionnaires analysis covered the effects
of the course content, the language items, the activities, and the
supplementary materials of the course on the students’ speaking skills
achievement. Those parts can be described in the following tables:

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 199

Table 31 The lecturers response to the teaching materials’ content

Source: Kaharuddin (2014:223)

Comments:
As shown at table 4. 31, the three lecturers (100%) think that the
contents of the developed teaching materials give positive effect
on the development of the students’ speaking skills after
treatment for some reasons i.e. the materials cover a variety of
topics and situations which appropriate to the students’ level and
needs (3 lecturers strongly agree 100%), the materials are
relevant to syllabus aims (3 lecturers strongly agree 100%), The
materials give the students more opportunity to practice speaking
(3 lecturers strongly agree 100%), the materials use authentic
tapes and dialogues (3 lecturers strongly agree 100%) that are
very helpful to increase the students’ pronunciation in speaking.

200 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

 Supporting information:
As for the English lecturers (L) who have tried out the teaching
materials, the drafts of the teaching materials are very interesting
and effective in making the students speak actively. Here are their
comments about the course content:
L. 001)
“I think, all topics and materials given in this course are effective
making the students speak actively”.
L. 002)
“The topics are very interesting and succeed in improving the
students’ speaking skills”.
L. 003)
“I think, the topics and the materials are good to the students
because they really give the students more opportunity to practice
speaking in English”
After presenting the lecturers’ perceptions on the content of the
teaching materials, let’s take a look at their perceptions on the language
items available in the teaching materials immediately after trying them
out in the classroom. The information can be seen in the following
table:

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 201

Table 32 The lecturers’ responses to the language items given in
the teaching materials after the treatment.

Source: Kaharuddin (2014:225)

Comments:
Information presented in table 32 shows that the entire lecturers
(100%) give positive responses after implementing the teaching
materials in the classroom. They are of the opinion that the
students’ achievement in speaking is good for some reasons i.e. the
language functions, language focus, vocabulary, and grammar
items are appropriate to the students’ level and needs (2 lecturers
or 66.66% strongly agree and 1 lecture or 33.33% agree), all units
equip the students with vocabulary lesson (3 lecturers or 100%
strongly agree), grammar lesson (3 lecturers or 100% strongly
agree) as well pronunciation drill lesson (3 lecturers or 100%
strongly agree) to practice speaking.
The next is to see the lecturers’ responses to the activities and
tasks available in the teaching materials. Detailed information about it
can be found out in the following table:

202 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

Table 33 The analysis of the lecturers’ responses to the activities
and tasks given in the teaching materials after treatment

Source: Kaharuddin (2014:226)

Comments:
As presented in the table above, the entire English lecturers are of
the opinion that the activities and task given during the try out are
very effective to improve the students’ speaking skills for some
reasons i.e. the activities and tasks are interesting (the entire 3
lecturers strongly agree with this statement or 100%), the
activities and task provide a real-world use of language in daily
lives (100% of the lecturers also strongly agree with this fact), the
activities and tasks provide for varying learning arrangements like

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 203

 pair practice, role play, and games which have motivated and
stimulated the students to practice speaking (the three lectures or
100% also strongly agree with this option), and the instructions
for the activities and tasks are simple and clear which have
facilitated the students gain advantages from the teaching
materials (all lecturers or 100% strongly agree with this
statement).
Supporting information:
In addition, after trying out the teaching materials, one of the
English lecturers gave comments on the activities and the tasks of
the teaching materials that:
L. 002)
“I think, I like the activities because it seems to me that the
students are really motivated to take a part in the activities.
Besides, they also give the students more opportunity to practice
the vocabulary that they have already learnt such as in pair
practice, role-play, and games”.
The next discussion is to find out the lecturers’ perceptions about
the supplementary materials available in the teaching materials.
Detailed information about their responses can be seen in table 34:

204 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

Table 34 The lecturers’ responses to the supplementary materials
available in the prototypes of the teaching materials after treatment

Source: Kaharuddin (2014:228)

Comments:
From the data presented in the table above, it is obviously seen
that all lecturers (100%) who have tried out the teaching material
in the classroom give positive responses to the effectiveness of the
teaching materials toward the progress of the students’
achievement in their speaking skills. The English lecturers are of
the opinion that the teaching materials are not only useful in the
aspects of the teaching materials’ contents, language items, and
activities but also in the aspect of supplementary materials.
According to the lecturers, the supplementary materials can help
the students to improve their speaking skills after the treatment
due to the availability of authentic tapes of native English
speakers for pronunciation practice or listening comprehension
(the entire lecturers strongly agree with this statement or 100%),
handouts which are given to focus the students on learning a
certain topic and language function (the three lecturers also

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 205

 strongly agree with this or 100%), authentic visual materials such
as real pictures and photographs which are provided to give a
clearer illustration to a topic and to make the materials more
interesting (all lecturers strongly agree with it or 100%).
Supporting information:
The analysis of the data associated with the lecturers’ perceptions
and responses after trying out the teaching materials for speaking
course one in the classroom has been the basis to draw a
conclusion that the lecturers have positive perception to the
contents, the language items, the activities and the supplementary
materials provided in the teaching materials. This positive
perception is conveyed due to the fact that as for the English
lecturers, the students really get improvement in their speaking
skills after learning with the teaching materials. The lecturers’
opinions can be illustrated as follow:
L. 002)
“I think, the students really get improvement in their speaking
skills after learning with the materials because they can practice
the vocabulary, pronunciation given in a particular topic in various
classroom activities such as pair work, role-play, and language
games. That good opportunity has resulted in making the students
speak English better than before”.
L. 003)
“I think. The students have achieved good progress in their skills
in speaking English. It is because the materials are interesting and
able to motivate them to practice more speaking. I can see that the
students have a good spirit when they are learning with the
materials especially in pair practice and language games”.
Conclusion:
Regarding the results of the descriptive analysis as described
above, it is concluded that overall the draft of the teaching
materials are interesting, appropriate to the students’ level and
needs which have resulted in significant improvement achieved by
the students in their speaking skill.

206 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

Level 4: Results
The three previous types of evaluation have given an illustration
about the effectiveness of implementing the communicative
competence-based syllabus design for speaking course one. This has
been measured in two aspects i.e. the first; the effect of the
instructional design on the progress of the students’ communicative
competence by using the information gathered from the students’
responses, as well as the pre-test and the post-test results. The second;
the effect of the instructional design on the progress of the students’
communicative competence by using the information gathered from
lectures’ perceptions toward the students’ performance after teaching
them with the developed teaching materials. Detailed information
about the overall phases of summative evaluation used in this design
can be seen in the following table:

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 207

Table 35 The overall results of summative evaluation

The information gained from the table above has shown that after
going through the three levels of summative evaluation procedures as a
review phase of the syllabus design, it is important to come to decide
that teaching materials developed from the syllabus design have
achieved the course aims i.e. to help the students communicate
effectively and confidently in English by developing the students’
vocabulary, pronunciation, and basic grammar, and to prepare the
students have a good basic foundation in speaking which enables them
to communicate everyday situation and topics. This conclusion is
drawn up by taking into account three aspects:

208 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

a. The students’ positive reaction to the teaching materials,
b. The students’ progress in their speaking skills which is measured
based on the results of pre-test and post-test from fair to good
level.
c. The lecturers’ positive perception on the teaching materials after
using the materials in the classroom and witnessing the students’
improvement in speaking when teaching them with the teaching
materials.
Therefore, implementing all phases of the communicative
competence-based syllabus design has succeed in developing a well
design syllabus and a set of teaching materials for speaking course one.
The syllabus is recognized as a well design syllabus for some reasons
i.e.
a. The course aims and objectives are stated clearly because they are
formulated based on the information gathered during a needs
analysis.
b. The course contents in the syllabus are developed besed on the
aims and the objectives of the course.
c. The course contents reflect the students’ needs and level since
they are selected and sequenced based on the inventory during
the needs analysis.
d. The course contents are well-sequenced and well-organized. They
are determined based on ‘need’ criteria because the materials are
organized in order of importance to the the students’ needs in
personal and social lives.
e. The course contentes are mapped by using appropriate syllabus
frameworks i.e. communicative competence-based syllabus design
which integrates three types of syllabus namely content-based
syllabus, structural syllabus, as well as competency-based
syllabus.
f. Methodology or activities employed in the syllabus are selected
based on the students’ learning preference and learning styles.
g. The proposed syllabus design has been implemented and
evaluated and the findings of this investigation have shown that

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 209

 the syllabus design and its teaching materials can significantly
improve the students’ speaking skills from fair to good quality,
based on the analysis of the data gathered during pre-test and post
test, the students’ reactions as well as the lecturers’ perceptions
about the implementation of the syllabus design and its contents.
Based on the results drawn in this section, the writers are in need of
putting forward the following suggestions to readers:
1. In designing syllabus and developing the syllabus into the course
contents specifically for speaking courses, the students’ needs
should be used as the starting point to determine the types of
teaching materials and the teaching activities in the courses.
2. All efforts needed to design syllabus and to develop course
contents in any English subjects should employ formal procedures
of designing syllabus as exemplified in this research. This is
essential to carry out to match between the students’ needs and
the objectives of the courses.
3. It is suggested that teachers of English and syllabus designers in
all levels of education should consider using the result of this
syllabus design implementation as a formal and a real example
that has systematically described the process of designing
syllabus and developing course contents, which in turn should be
used to develop syllabi and course contents for other English
courses such as listening, reading, as well as writing.

210 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

 Bibliography

Aisah, E. E. 2009. Development of English Language Teaching Syllabus

in Indonesia. (online), ([Link]
2009/05/11/, Retrieved on December 3, 2012).
Al afghani. J. 2011. English Syllabus Design for Nursing Students of
Akademi Perawat Sandi Karsa Makassar (A needs analysis).
Unpublished thesis. Makassar: Post graduate program of
Hasanuddin University.
Al-Saadi.S and Samuel.M. 2012. Towards a Multidimensional
Framework for a Large-scale Needs Analysis: A Pedagogical
Perspective. Arab World English Journal. Volume.3, Number.3:46-
56.
Alwasilah, C. 2007. Redesigning Indonesian Course in the
undergraduate curriculum: The Indonesian case. Paper presented
at ASAIHIL Conference, Lingnan University, Hong Kong, April 12,
2007.
Babbie, E. and Wagenaar,T.C.1986. The Practice of Social Research.
Wadsworth Publishing CO: Belmount, California.
Bagarić, V. 2007. Defining Communicative Competence, Metodika
Journal, (online), No.1, Vol. 8, p. 94-103
([Link]/[Link]?id=3915, retrieved on August
12, 2013)
Basturkmen, H. (1998). Refining Procedures. The Internet TESL Journal.
Vol. 36 No.4, Oct.-Dec. 1998.
Bell, R. T. 1981. An introduction to applied linguistics. Batsford:
London.

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 211

Bell, J. 1992. Doing Your Research Project: A guide for first time
research in Education and Social Science. Open University Press:
Great Britain.
Benesch.S. 1996. Needs Analysis and Curriculum Development in: EAP
an example of a critical approach. TESOL quarterly, (online) vol.
30, no. 4, winter 1996 p. 723-738, The City University of New York,
([Link] retrieved on
September 19, 2012).
Bire, J. 2008. Mismatch English education in Indonesia. FKIP Undana-
Kupang.
Bodegas,I.D.N, [Link]. 2007. From Curriculum to Syllabus Design: The
Different Stages to Design a Program. Fonael Journal (online),
Vol.13, No.3, ([Link] retrieved on August 21,
2012).
Borg, W.R. 1973. Research and Development As a Vehicle for Improving
Teacher Competence. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans,
Louisiana, February 23, 1973
Brindley, G. 1989. Needs Analysis and Objectives Setting in the Adult
Migrant Education Program, George Allen & Unwin Ltd: Sydney.
Brown, J. D. 1995. The Elements of Language Curriculum; A Systematic
Approach to Program Development. Heinle&Heinle Publishers:
Boston.
Brown, H. D. 2001. Teaching Principles: an interactive approach to
language pedagogy. A Pearson Education Company: New York.
Crystal, D. (2003a). English as a Global Language, (2nd Ed.) Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge.
---------------. (2003b). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English
Language, (2nd Ed.). Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
CRSC (Core Renewal Steering Committee). 2004. Learning Outcomes
for the University Core Curriculum: Final Report. Chicago: Loyola
University. (online) webmaster@[Link] retrieved on November
13, 2012.

212 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

Dharma, A. 2008. Indonesian Basic Education Curriculum Current
Content And Reform, Paper presented Roundtable Discussion in
Retrac Governing Board Meeting at Institut Aminuddin Baki,
Genting Highland, Malaysia.
Dick, W. 2000. Evaluation in Instructional Design: The Impact of
Kirkpatrick’s four-level Model. Florida State University Press:
Florida.
Dick, L. 2005. Syllabus Writing in Teaching English. Available at
([Link]
.shtml, retrieved on June 23, 2013)
Direktorat Jendral Pendidikan Tinggi. 2011. Kerangka Kualifikasi
Nasional Indonesi (KKNI). Kementrian Pendidkan dan
Kebudayaan, Jakarta
Dudley, T et al. 1998. Developments in English for Specific Purposes.
Cambridge university press: United Kingdom.
Dunn R., Deckinger, L., Withers, P., & Katzenstein, H. 1990. Should
college students be taught how to do homework? Illinois Research
and Development Journal, (online), vol. 26, No. 2, p: 96-113.
([Link]
ml, retrieved on November 19, 2013)
Ellis,R. 2003. The study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford
University Press: Oxford
Engelmann, S. 1993. The Curriculum as the Cause of Failure, Oregon
Conference Monograph Journal Vol.5 1993, University of Oregon
United States of America.
Evans, D.T., & St John, M. J. 1998. Developments in English for Specific
Purposes. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Exley, B. 2005. Learner characteristics of ‘Asian’ EFL students:
Exceptions to the ‘Norm.’ In Young, Janelle, Eds. Proceedings
pleasure passion provocation. Joint National Conference AATE &
ALEA , Gold Coast, Australia. pp. 1-16.
Gass,J. 2012. Needs Analysis and Situational Analysis: Designing an ESP
Curriculum for Thai Nurses. (online). [Link]
Issue 36. Vol.12.

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 213

Gay.R.L. et al. 2006. Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis
and Application. Pearson Prentice Hall:Australia.
Gebhard, J.G. 2000. Teaching English as a Foreign Language or Second
Language: A Teacher Self-development and Methodology Guide,
The University of Michigan Press: United States of America
Graves, K. 2000. Designing Language Courses. Heinle & Heinle: Canada.
Hadiyanto 2010. The Development of Core Competencies at Higher
Education: A Suggestion Model for Universities in Indonesia
EDUCARE: International Journal for Educational Studies. 3(1).
Harris, P. D. 2002. Testing English as a Second Language, Tata Mc Graw-
Hill Publishing Company, LTD: Bombay New Delhi.
Hatch, E. and Farhady, H. 1982. Research Design and Statistics for
Applied Linguistics. Newbury House Publishers, Inc: London.
Heaton, J.B. 2001. Writing English Language Tests, Longman inc: New
York, United States of America
Hook, J. 2006. Effective teaching principles: a framework for all
learners. Paper presented in Cheri conference, September 7, 2006.
Hussain, A. 2011. Evaluation of Curriculum Development Process,
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Vol. 1 No.
14; October 2011 University of Education College Road: Pakistan.
Hutchinson, T., and Waters, A. 1987. English for Specific Purposes: A
Learning-Centered Approach. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Jazadi, I. 2004. ELT in Indonesia in the Context of English as a Global
Language: The Tapestry of English Language Teaching and
Learning in Indonesia. State University of Malang Press: Indonesia.
Jiayan, G and Jianbin, H. 2010. On Communicative Competence in
Curriculum Design: A Comparison of the College English
Curriculum Requirements and the English Curriculum Standards,
Polyglossia International Journal Vol. 18, February 2010: 73-86.
Kaharuddin. 2014. Communicative Competence-Based Syllabus Design
for Speaking Course One for English Education Students,
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertaion, Post graduate Program of
Hasanuddin University: Makassar

214 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

Keputusan Mentri Pendidikan Nasional Republik Indonesia
No.232/U/2000 tentang Pedoman Penyusunan Kurikulum
Pendidikan Tinggi dan Penilaian Hasil Belajar Mahasiswa. 2000.
Jakarta: Kementrian Pendidikan Nasional.
Kouwenhoven, K. 2003. Designing for competence: towards a
competence based curriculum for the faculty of education of the
Eduardo Mondlane University. Doctoral dissertation. Enschede:
Twente University.
Krahnke, K. 1987. Approaches to Syllabus Design for Foreign Language
Learning. Englewood Cliff, Prentice Hall Regents: New Jersey.
Larsen, D. 2003. Techniques and Principle in Language Teaching.
Oxford University press: New York.
Lauder, A. 2008. The Status and Function of English in Indonesia: A
Review of Key Factors. University of Indonesia, Makara Sosial
Humaniora Journal, Vol.12, No.1:9-20.
Leung, C, and A. Teasdale. 1988. ESL Teachers Competence:
Professionalism in a Social Market. University of Chicago press:
Chicago.
Levy, Y and Ellis, T.J. 2011. A Guide for Novice Researchers on
Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Studies in Information
Systems Research. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information,
Knowledge, and Management, (online), Vol.6.
([Link] retrieved on
January 3, 2013)
Liang,A and Cheng, Y. 2011. A Case Study of College English Curriculum
Design Under the Social Needs. Cs Canada Journal, Vol.3, No.3:1-5
Lie, A. 2007. Education Policy And EFL Curriculum in Indonesia:
Between The Commitment To Competence and The Quest For
Higher Test Scores, TEFLIN Journal, Volume 18, Number 1,
February 2007
Littlewood, W. 2002. Communicative Language Teaching. Cambridge
University Press:.United Kingdom.
Lowenberg, Peter H. 1991. English As An Additional Language In
Indonesia. World Englishes, 10/2, pp. 127-138.

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 215

Madya, S. 2007. Searching for an Appropriate EFL Curriculum Design
for the Indonesian Pluralistic Society TEFLIN journal, volume 18,
number 2, August 2007
Marsh, C. 1986. Curriculum: an Analytical Introduction. Novak: Sydney.
Mattarima, K. et al. 2011. The Teaching Constraints of English as a
Foreign Language in Indonesia: The Context of School Based
Curriculum. (online), [Link]-
[Link]/sh_files/File/[Link], retrieved on December 12,
2012).
McNiff,J and Whitehead,J. 2006. All you Need to Know about Action
Research. SAGE [Link]: London.
Meric, O.G. 2011. Improving the English language Curriculum at the
University Level Using a Human Rights Approach. Universidad
Estatal: Amazonica
Maley, A. 1984. Constraints-based Syllabuses" in Read, J.A.S. (ed).
Trends in Language Syllabus Design. SEAMEO Regional Language
Centre: Singapore
Munby, J. 1978. Communicative Syllabus Design. Cambridge University
Press: London.
------------. 1984. Communicative Syllabus Design: Principles and
Problems in Read, J.A.S. (ed.) Trends in Language Syllabus Design.
SEAMEO Regional Language Centre: Singapore.
Mulyatiningsih, E. 2012. Metode Penelitian Terapan Bidang pendidikan.
Penerbit Alfabeta: Bandung.
Mustadi. A. 2012. Communicative Competence-Based Language
Teaching: An English course design for PGSD, Universitas Negeri
Yogyakarta Press: Yogyakarta.
Musthafa, B. 2009. English Teaching in Indonesia: Status, Issues and
Challenges
Nababan, P.W.J. 1984. The Threshold level for High school English in
Indonesia. In A. S. John (Ed.), Trends in English Syllabus Design.
SEAMEO RELC, Singapore.183-192.

216 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

Norway, Statistics. 2009. Innovation, research and development (R&D).
(online), ([Link] retrieved on February 2,
2013)
Nunan and Bailey. 2009. Exploring Second Language Classroom
Research: A Comprehensive Guide. Nelson Education,Ltd: Canada.
Nunan, D and Lamb, C. 1996. The Self-directed Teacher: Managing the
Learning Process. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Nunan, D. 1988. Syllabus Design. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
-----------. 1991. Language Teaching Methodology. Prentice Hall: New
York
------------. 1998. The Learner Centered Curriculum. Cambridge
University Press: New York.
------------. 2004. Task-Based Language Teaching. University of Hong
Kong, Cambridge University press: Hongkong
Oxford Dictionary. 2005. Learner’s Pocket Dictionary, Oxford University
Press: Oxford.
Paksira. 2009. The History of English Curriculum in Indonesia. (online).
([Link]
english-curriculum-in-indonesia/, Retrieved on November 9,
2012)
Paradowski, M. B. 2002. Needs Analysis as The First Step in Syllabus
Design, (online),
([Link] retrieved on
October 21, 2013)
Patil, Z.N. 2008. Rethinking the objectives of teaching English in Asia,”
Asian EFL Journal, 10(4), pp. 227-240
Peraturan Pemerintah Republik Indonesia No.19 Tahun 2005 tentang
Standard Pendidikan Nasional. 2005. Jakarta: Kementrian Hukum
dan Hak Azasi Manusia.
Petrus, I. 2012. English Language Teaching in Higher Education: An
English Course Design at a State University. Unpublished thesis.
Bandung: Program pasca sarjana. Universitas Pendidikan
Indonesia.

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 217

Print, M. 1993. Curriculum Development and Design. SRM production
service Sdn Bhd: Malaysia.
Priska J.R. Siagian et al. 2011. A Competence-Based Curriculum Design
for Entrepreneurship Study Program. International Research
Journal of Business Studies. Vol.4. No.2:137-155.
Rea, P. et al. 1993. Evaluation: A scheme for Teacher Education. Oxford
University Press: Hong Kong.
Renandya, W. A. 2004. Indonesia. In. H. W. Kam & R. Y. L. Wong
(Eds.),Language policies and language education: The impact in
East Asian countries in the next decade. Eastern Universities
Press: Singapore. (pp. 115-131).
Renadya, W. A and Sunga, N.R. 2001. Language Curriculum and
Instruction in Multicultural Societies, SEAMEO Regional Language
Center: Singapore.
Richards, J.C. 1995. The language Teaching Matrix. Cambridge
University Press: United States of America.
---------------.2001. Curriculum Development in Language Teaching.
Cambridge University Press: United Kingdom.
---------------,2008. Teaching Listening and Speaking: From Theory to
Practice. Cambridge University Press: United States of America.
Richards, J. C., & Farrell, T. S. C. 2005. Professional Development for
Language Teachers. Cambridge University Press: New York.
Richards, J.C and Rodgers, T.S 1999. Approaches and Methods in
Language Teaching: A Description and Analysis. Cambridge
University Press: United States of America.
Richey and Klein. 2005. Developmental Research Methods: Creating
knowledge from Instructional Design and Development Practice.
Journal of computing in Higher Education. Spring Vol.16. (2), 23-
38.
Riding,P. [Link]. 1995. An Action Research Approach to Curriculum
Development. (online), Vol.1, No.1, ([Link]
1/[Link], retrieved on December 7, 2012).

218 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

Ridwan, E., W. Renandya, and A. Lie. 1996. On being reflective: A survey
of EFL teachers in Indonesia. Paper presented at the RELC
Seminar, Singapore.
Riggenbach, H., & Lazaraton, A. 1991. Promoting oral communication
skills. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or
foreign language (2nd ed.) (pp. 125-136). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Roberts, J. 1998. Language Teacher Education. Arnold: London
Savignon, S.J. 2002. Interpreting Communicative Language Teaching:
Contexts and Concerns in Teacher Education. Yale University
Press: New Haven, London.
Seliger and Shohamy. 1989. Second Language Research Methods.
Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Shumin, K. 2002. Factors to Consider: Developing Adult EFL Students
Speaking Abilities. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Stewart, K. L., & Felicetti, L. A. 1992. Learning styles of marketing
majors. Educational Research Quarterly, International Educational
Studies. (online), Vol. 15, No. 2, p: 15-23.
([Link]/journal/[Link]/ies/article/download/1725/165
9, retrieved on August 24, 2013)
Storey,C.W. 2007. Insights into Language Curriculum Development.
Electronic Journal of Foreign language Teaching, (online), Vol.4,
No.1:86-107, ([Link] retrieved on January 3,
2013).
Sudiyono. 2003. Pengantar Evaluasi Pendidikan. Raja Grafindo Persada:
Jakarta.
Sugiyono. 2012. Metode Penelitian Administrasi. Penerbit Alfabeta:
Bandund.
Suharto. 2009. From Competence Based Curriculum to School Based
Curriculum, Academic Journal Ragam, Vol 9, No. 2, Diponegoro
University.
Sundayana, W. 2009. Pengembangan Kurikulum Pendidikan Dan
Silabus Berbasis Kompetensi Di Lingkungan Program Studi Tadris
Bahasa Inggris Dalam Konteks Pendidikan Profesi Guru Pra

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 219

 Jabatan, Makalah Disajikan pada Bedah Kurikulum Prodi Tadris
Bahasa Inggris, Jurusan Tarbiyah, STAIN Prof. Dr. H. Mahmud
Yunus Batusangkar
Syam,W.A.S. 2011. Pengembangan Kurikulum Program Study Bahasa
dan Sastra Inggris Fakultas Ilmu Budaya Universitas Diponegoro.
Parole Journal. Vol.2. No.1:83-100.
Tan,O.L.C. [Link]. 2011. Effects of Recuprocal teaching Strategies on
Reading Comprehension. University Sains Malaysia, The Reading
Matrix Journal, Vo.11, Number.2: 140-149.
Tim evaluasi kurikulum, 2006. Kerangka Dasar Kurikulum dan Struktur
Kurikulum Berbasis Ketuhanan. STAIN Parepare, Jurusan
Tarbiyah.
Tim penyempurnaan kurikulum, 2007. Silabus Mata Kuliah Program
Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, STAIN Parepare, Jurusan
Tarbiyah.
Tomlinson,B.2007. Developing Materials for Language Teaching,
Continuum [Link]: London.
Undang-undang Republik Indonesia No 20 Tahun 2003 tantang Sistem
Pendidikan Nasional. 2003. Jakarta: Kementrian Sekretariat
Negara Republik Indonesia.
Undang-undang Republik Indonesia No 14 Tahun 2005 tantang Guru
dan Dosen. 2005. Jakarta: Kementrian Hukum dan Hak Azasi
Manusia Republik Indonesia.
Undang-undang Republik Indonesia No 12 Tahun 2012 tantang
Pendidikan Tinggi. 2012. Jakarta: Kementrian Sekretariat Negara
Republik Indonesia.
Unesco. 2003. Towards a Multilingual Culture of Education. Unesco
Institute for education:Hamburg, Germany.
Utami W. 2006. The Teaching Of Efl Speaking In The Indonesian
Context: The State Of The Art. Jurnal Bahasa Dan Seni, Tahun 34,
Nomor 2, Agustus 2006
Visser, M. 2008. Learning under conditions of hierarchy and discipline:
The case of the German Army (1939-1940). Learning Inquiry.

220 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching

 (online), ([Link]
retrieved on July 10, 2013)
West, R. 1997. Needs Analysis: State of the Art. In Howard, Ron and
Brown, Gillian (ed). Teacher Education for Languages for Specific
Purposes. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
White, R. V. 1988. The English Language Teaching curriculum. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Willing, K. 1988. Learning Styles in Adult Migrant Education. NCRC
Research Series: Australia.
Yanto, E.S. 2011. An Analysis of School-Based English Curriculum
(KTSP). (online), ([Link]
retrieved on October 12, 2012).
Zhang, J. 2009. Necessity of Grammar Teaching. Online journals,
(online) Vol. 2, No. 2, p: 184-187.
([Link]/journal/[Link], retrived on November 27,
2013)
Zohrabi, M. 2011. An Investigation of Curriculum Elements for the
Enhancement of the Teaching-learning Process. (online), Vol.1,
No.1 ([Link]/hes, retrieved on January 3, 2013).

Abdul Hakim Yassi & [Link] Bahar I 221

222 I Syllabus Design for English Language Teaching