Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:30:48.417Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Contemporary Paradigms in Syllabus Design Part II

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2008

Michael P. Breen
Michael P. Breen
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics & Modern English Language University of Lancaster
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
State-of-the-Art Article
Information
Language Teaching , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , July 1987 , pp. 157 - 174
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abercrombie, M. L. J. (1960). The anatomy of judgement. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Adams, H. B. (1986). The teaching of problem-solving strategies. Gifford Education International, 4.Google Scholar
Allen, J. P. B. (1984) General-purpose language teaching; a variable focus approach. In Brumfit, C. J. (ed.), General English syllabus design, ELT Documents, 118.Google Scholar
Allen, J. P. B. & Howard, J. (1981). Subject-related ESL; an experiment in communicative language teaching. Canadian Modern Language Review, 37, 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allwright, R. L. (1982) Perceiving and pursuing learners' needs. In Geddes, M. & Sturtridge, G. (eds.), Individualisation. Oxford: Modern English Publications.Google Scholar
Allwright, R. L. (1984). Why don't learners learn what teachers teach?; the interaction hypothesis. In Singleton, D. & Little, D. G. (eds.), Language learning informal and informal contexts. Dublin: IRAAL.Google Scholar
Altman, H. B. & Vaughan, James C. (eds.) (1980). Foreign language teaching: meeting individual needs. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Ausubel, D. (1985). Learning as constructing meanings. In Entwistle, N. J. (ed.) New directions in educational psychology. London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
Bannister, D. & Fransella, F. (1980). Inquiring man. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Barnes, D. (1978). From communication to curriculum. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Bartleit, F. C. (1932) Remembering; a study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Beretta, A. & Davies, A. (1985). Evaluation of the Bangalore project. ELTJ, 39, 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bialystok, E. & Sharwood, Smith M. (1985). Interlanguage is not a state of mind: an evaluation of the construct for SLA. Applied Linguistics, 6, 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blair, R. W. (ed.) (1982). Innovative approaches to language teaching. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Bloom, B. S. (ed.) (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives 1; The cognitive domain. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bonarius, H., Holland, R. & Rosenberg, S. (eds.) (1981). Personal construct psychology; recent advances in theory and practice. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Breen, M. P. (1983). How would we recognise a communicative classroom? In Coffey, B. (ed), Teacher training and the curriculum; the Dunford House Seminar 1982. London: The British Council.Google Scholar
Breen, M. P. (1984) Process syllabuses for the language classroom. In Brumfit, C. J. (ed), General English syllabus design, ELT Documents, 118.Google Scholar
Breen, M. P. (1987). Learner contributions to task design in Candlin, C. N. & Murphy, D. (eds.), Tasks in language learning. Prentice Hall International.Google Scholar
Breen, M. P. (forthcoming). The evaluation cycle for language learning tasks. In Johnson, R. K. (ed.), Programme design; development and evaluation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Breen, M. P., Candlin, C. N. & Waters, A. (1979). Communicative materials design: some basic principles. RELC Journal, 10, 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breen, M. P. & Candlin, C. N. (1980). The essentials of a communicative curriculum for language teaching. Applied Linguistics, I, 2.Google Scholar
Breen, M. P., Candlin, C. N., Dam, L. & Gabrielsen, G. (Forthcoming). The evolution of a teacher training programme. In Johnson, R. K. (ed.).Google Scholar
Brindley, G. P. (1984). Needs analysis and objectives setting in the adult migrant education program. Sydney: Adult Migrant Educational Service.Google Scholar
The British Council (1980). Projects in materials design. ELT Documents Special.Google Scholar
Brumftt, C.J. (1981). Language variation and the death of language teaching. BAAL Newsletter, 13.Google Scholar
Brumfit, C. J. (ed.) (1983). Learning and teaching languages for communication: applied linguistic perspectives. London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research.Google Scholar
Brumfit, C. J. (1984 a). Communicative methodology in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brumfit, C.J. (1984 b). The Bangalore Procedural Syllabus ELTJ, 38, 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical basis of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, I, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Candlin, C. N. (1984). Syllabus design as a critical process in Brumfit, C. J. (ed.), General English syllabus design, ELT Documents, 118.Google Scholar
Candlin, C. N. (1987). Towards task-based learning. In Candlin, C. N. & Murphy, D. F. (eds.)Google Scholar
Candlin, C. N. & Edelhoff, C. (1982). Challenges; teacher's guide. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Candlin, C. N. & Murphy, D. F. (eds.) (1987). Tasks in language learning. Prentice Hall International.Google Scholar
Carter, G. & Thomas, H. (1986). ‘Dear brown eyes’: experiential learning in a project-oriented approach. ELTJ, 40, 3.Google Scholar
Carter, R. A. & McCarthy, M. J. (eds.) (1987). Vocabulary in language learning. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Centre For Educational Research and Innovation (1973). OECD case studies of educational innovation: III At the school level. Paris: O.E.C.D.Google Scholar
Clark, J. & Hamilton, J. (1984). Syllabus guidelines I: communication. London: CILT.Google Scholar
Corder, S. P. (1960). English language teaching and television. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Corder, S. P. (1980). SLA research and the teaching of grammar. BAAL Newsletter, 10.Google Scholar
Corder, S. P. (1981). Error analysis and interlanguage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Council of Europe (1984). Towards a more comprehensive framework for the definition of language learning objectives, Vols I & II. Strasbourg: Council for Cultural Cooperation.Google Scholar
Dam, L. (1982) Beginning English: an experiment in learning and teaching. Copenhagen: Danmarks Laererh/jskole (Mimeo).Google Scholar
Dam, L. (1983) Intermediate English: an experiment in learning and teaching. Copenhagen: Danmarks Laererhøjskole (Mimeo).Google Scholar
Deutscher, Volkshochschul-Verband E. V. (1986). Cross-cultural learner project. Frankfurt: Pädagogische Arbeitsstelle.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1974). Experience in education. New York: Collier.Google Scholar
Dubin, F. & Olshtein, E. (1986). Course design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Edelhoff, C. (1984). Landeskunde zum Anfassen: the Lancaster outing. In Schratz, M. (ed), Englischunterricht im Gespräch. Bochum: Kamp.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Freedman, A., Pringle, I. & Yalden, J. (eds.) (1983). Learning to write: first language/second language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Fried-Booth, D. (1982). Project work with advanced classes. ELTJ, 36, 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friere, P. (1970). Cultural action for freedom. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Harper, D. P. L. (ed.) (forthcoming). Task-based learning in the King Abdul Aziz University in Jeddah: 1975–84 (provisional title). Prentice Hall International.Google Scholar
Hawkins, E. (1984). Awareness of language: an introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Holec, H. (1980). Autonomy in foreign language learning. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Holt, J. (1976). Instead of education. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Humanities Curriculum Project (1970). The Humanities Curriculum Project: an introduction. London: Heinemann Educational.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, T. & Waters, A. (1987). English for Specfic Purposes: a learning–centred approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huttunen, I. (1986). Towards learner autonomy in foreign language learning in senior secondary school. Oulu, Finland: University of Oulu.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. (1971). Competence and performance in linguistic theory. In Huxley, R. & Ingram, E. (eds.), Language acquisition models and methods. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. (1972). Models of the interaction of language and social life. In Gumperz, J. J. & Hymes, D. (eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: the ethnography of communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. K. (ed.) (forthcoming). Programme design: development and evaluation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jones, K. (1984). Simulations in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kaplan, R. & Shaw, P. A. (1983). Exploring academic discourse. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Kennedy, C. & Bolitho, R. (1984). English for Specfic Purposes. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. & Terrell, T. D. (1983). The natural approach. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Legutke, M. & Thiel, W. (1982). ‘Airport’: ein projeckt für den Englischunterricht in Klasse 6. Hessisches lnstitut für Bildungundschulentwicklung.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (1983 a). Does second language instruction make a difference? A review of research. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 3.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1983 b). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation in the second language classroom. In Clarke, M. & Hanscombe, J. (eds.), On TESOL '82. Washington, D. C.: TESOL.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1985). The design of classroom second language acquisition: towards task–based language teaching. In Hyltenstan, K. & Pienemann, M. (eds.), Modelling and assessing second language development. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Longman, B. B. C. & Institut Für filma und clid (1977). Challenges. London: Longman.Google Scholar
McDonogh, J. (1984). ESP in perspective: a practical guide. London: Collins Educational.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R. (1985). Communicative interaction research project: final report. Dept. of Education, University of Stirling.Google Scholar
Newmark, L. (1966). How not to interfere with language learning. International Journal of American Linguistics, 32, 1.Google Scholar
Newmark, L. (1971). A minimal language teaching program. In Pimsleur, P. & Quinn, T. (eds.), The psychology of second language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Parker, J. C. & Rubin, L.J. (1966). Process as content. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Peters, R. S. (1959). Authority, responsibility and education. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Postman, N. & Weingartner, C. (1969). Teaching as a subversive activity. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy: a perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Quinn, T. J. (1985). Functional approaches in language pedagogy. In Kaplan, R. B. et al. (eds.), Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 5.Google Scholar
Richards, J. C. (1984 a). The secret life of method. TESOL Quarterly, 18, 1.Google Scholar
Richards, J. C. (1984 b). Language curriculum development. RELC Journal, 15, 1.Google Scholar
Roberts, J. (1982). Recent developments in ELT: part II. Language Teaching, 15, 3.Google Scholar
Rogers, C. (1969). Freedom to learn. Colombus Ohio: Merrill.Google Scholar
Rogers, C. (1983). Freedom to learn for the 'eighties. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill.Google Scholar
Rubin, J. & Wendon, A. L. (1987). Learner strategies: theory, research and applications. Prentice Hall International.Google Scholar
Rutherford, W. (1987). Teaching and learning second language grammar. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Savingson, S. J. (1972). Communicative competence: an experiment in foreign language teaching. Philadelphia: Centre for Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
Savingson, S. J. (1983). Communicative competence: theory and classroom practice. Reading, Mass.: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
Savingson, S. J. & Berns, M. S. (eds.) (1984). Initiatives in communicative language teaching. Reading, Mass.: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
Schinnerer-Erben, J. (1981). Sequencing redefined. Lancaster Practical Papers in English Language Education, 4.Google Scholar
Simons, S. et al. (1972). Values clarification: a practical handbook of strategies for teachers and students. New York: Hart, Rineholt & Winston.Google Scholar
Sinclair, , Mch., J. & Renouf, A. J. (1987). A lexical syllabus for language learning. In Carter, R. A. & McCarthy, M. J. (eds.).Google Scholar
Singleton, W. T. (ed.) (1978). The study of real skills: Vol 1: the analysis of practical skills: Lancaster: MTP Press.Google Scholar
Skilbeck, M. (1984). School–based curriculum development. London: Harper Educational Series.Google Scholar
Smith, P. (1980). Group processes and personal change. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. London: Heineman.Google Scholar
Stern, H. H. & Weinrib, A. (1971) French language teaching modules: a new approach to language teaching materials. Canadian Modern Language Review, 27, 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, H. H., Ullman, R., Balchunas, M., Hanna, M., Schneidermann, E. & Argue, V. (1980). Module making: a study in the development and evaluation of learning materials for French as a second language. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
Stern, H. H. (1983). Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stevick, E. W. (1976). Memory, meaning and method. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Stevick, E. W. (1980). Teaching languages: a way and ways. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Swales, J. (1984). Episodes in ESP. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Tongue, R. & Gibbons, J. (1982). Structural syllabuses and the young beginner. Applied Linguistics, 3, 1.Google Scholar
Ullman, R. (1981). A thematic and activity approach to communicative language teaching in second language classrooms. Bulletin of the Canadian Association of Applied Linguistics(LACLA), 3, 2.Google Scholar
Waters, A. & Hutchinson, T. (1985). Interface. London: Longman.Google Scholar
White, A. ed. (1981). New directions for teaching and learning: interdisciplinary teaching. San Francisco: Jossey–Bass.Google Scholar
Widdowson, H. G. (1978). Teaching language as communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Widdowson, H. G. (1981). English for specific purposes: criteria for course design. In Selinker, L.et al. (eds.), English for Academic and Technical Purposes: studies in honour of Louis Trimble. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Widdowson, H. G. (1984 a). Learning purpose and language use. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Widdowson, H. G. (1984 b). Educational and pedagogic factors in syllabus design. In Brumfit, C. J. (ed.), General English syllabus design. ELT Documents, 118.Google Scholar
Widdowson, H. G. (1987). Aspects of syllabus design (mimeo).Google Scholar
Willis, D. (1986). A task-based approach to language learning. In Higgs, D. (ed), Dunford House Seminar Report: Communication skills training in bilateral aid projects. London: The British Council.Google Scholar
Williams, R., Swales, J. & Kirkman, J. (eds.) (1984). Common ground: shared interests in ESP and communication studies. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Winitz, H. & Reeds, (1975). Comprehension and problem-solving as strategies for learner training. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Yalden, J. (1983). The communicative syllabus: evolution, design and implementation. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Zamel, V. (1983). The composing processes of advanced ESL students: six case studies. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 2.Google Scholar