Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T05:20:07.394Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Contemporary Paradigms in Syllabus Design. Part I

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2008

Michael P. Breen
Michael P. Breen
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics and 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 2 , April 1987 , pp. 81 - 92
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

References for Part I

Abbs, B., Ayton, A. & Freebairn, I. (1975). Strategies. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Arrkenhead, A. M. & Slack, J. M. (eds.) (1985). Issues in cognitive modeling. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Alexander, L. G. (1976). Where do we go from here? A reconsideration of some basic assumptions affecting course design. ELTJ, 30, 2.Google Scholar
Allen, J. P. B. & Widdowson, H. (1975). Grammar in language teaching. In Allen, J. P. B. & Corder, S. P. (eds.), The Edinburqh Course in Applied Linguistics: Volume II Papers in Applied Linguistics. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bright, . A. & McGregor, G. P. (1970). Teaching English as a Second Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Brindley, G. (1985). Some current issues in second language teaching. In Nicholas, H. (ed.), Current issues in first and second language development. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, Series 5.Google Scholar
British council (1978). English for Specific Purposes. ELT Docs, 101.Google Scholar
Brown, H. D. (1975). The next 25 years: shaping the revolution. In Burt, M. K. & Dulay, H. C. (eds.), On TESOL '75. Washington D.C.: TESOL.Google Scholar
Brumfit, C.J. (1981). Language variation and the death of language teaching. BAAL Newsletter, 13.Google Scholar
Brumfit, C.J. (ed.) (1984). General English syllabus design. ELT Docs, 118.Google Scholar
Brumfit, C.J. (1984). Communicative methodology in language teaching. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brumfit, C.J. & Johnson, K. (eds.) (1979). The communicative approach to language teaching. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bung, K. (1973). The specfication of objectives in a language learning system for adults. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Coste, D., Courtillon, J., Ferenczi, F., Martin-Baltar, M. & Pappo, E. (1976). Un niveau seuil. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Council of Europe (1971). Linguistic content, means of evaluation and their interaction in the teaching and learning of modern languages in adult education. Symposium at Rüschlikon, 05 1971. Council of Europe Paper CCC/EES (1971) 135. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Council of Europe (1984). Towards a more comprehensive framework for the definition of language learning objectives, vols. 1 and 2. Strasbourg: Council for Cultural Cooperation.Google Scholar
Crawford-Lange, L. M. (1982). Curricula alternatives for second language learning. In Higgs, T. V. (ed), Curriculum, competence and the foreign language teacher. Shokie, Ill.: National Textbook Co., ASTFL.Google Scholar
Eisner, E. W. & Vallance, E. (1974). Conflicting conceptions of the curriculum. Berkeley, Ca.; McCutchan.Google Scholar
Fries, C. C. (1947). Teaching and learning English as a Foreign Language, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as a social semiotic. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., Mcintosh, A. & Strevens, P. D. (1964). The linguistic sciences and language teaching. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Harding, A., Page, B. & Rowell, S. (1980). Graded objectives in modern languages. London: Centre for the Information on Language Teaching and Research.Google Scholar
Hornby, A. S. (1959). The teaching of structural words and sentence patterns. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Howatt, A. (1984). A history of English language teaching. Oxford University Press.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, C. (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, K. (1982). Communicative syllabus design and methodology. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, K. & Porter, D. (eds.) (1983). Perspectives in communicative language teaching. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Jones, L. (1977). Functions of English. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lado, R. (1964). Language teaching: a scientfic approach. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. (1982). Speech act theory: the state of the art. In Kinsella, V. (ed.), Surveys 2 (Cambridge Language Teaching Surveys). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mackay, R. & Mountford, A. (1978). English for Special Purposes. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Mackey, W. F. (1965). Language teaching analysis. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Munby, J. (1978). Communicative syllabus design. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Murison-Bowie, S. (1983). Blending grammatical and notional/functional syllabuses. EFL Bulletin, 9.Google Scholar
Quinn, T.J. (1985). Functional approaches in language pedagogy. In Kaplan, R. B.et al. (eds.), ARAL, 5. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Raimes, A. (1983). Tradition and revolution in ESL teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Read, J. (ed.) (1984). Trends in language syllabus design. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre, Occasional Papers 31.Google Scholar
Richards, D. (ed.) (1983). Concepts and functions in current syllabuses. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre, Occasional Papers 30.Google Scholar
Richards, J. C. & Rogers, T. (1982). Method: approach, design and procedure. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rivers, W. M. (1972). Speaking in many tongues. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Roberts, J. (1982). Recent developments in ELT, parts I and II. Language Teaching, 15, 2 & 15, 3.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E. & Norman, D. A. (1983). Representation in memory: CHIP technical report 116. San Diego: Center for human Information Processing, University of California.Google Scholar
Saltarelli, M. (ed.) (1983). The foreign language syllabus: grammar notions and functions. Champaign, Urbana, Illinois: The Language Learning Laboratory (Studies in Language Learning, 4, 1.)Google Scholar
Shaw, A. M. (1977). Foreign language syllabus development: some recent approaches. Language Teaching and Linguistics Abstracts, 10, 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solmecke, G. (1983). Foreign language teaching: the state of the art. In Felix, S. W. & Wode, H. (eds.) Language development at the crossroads. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. London: Heineman.Google Scholar
Stern, H. H. (1983). Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Swan, M. (1981). False beginners. In Johnson, K. & Morrow, K. (eds.), Communication in the classroom. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Toney, T. (ed.) (1985). Dunford House Seminar Report 1984: Curriculum and syllabus design in ELT. London: The British Council.Google Scholar
Trimble, M. T., Trimble, L. & Drobnic, K. (eds.) (1978). English for Special Purposes: science and technology. English Language Institute, Oregon State University.Google Scholar
Valette, R. M. & Disich, R. S. (1972). Modern language performance objectives and individualisation. New York: Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Van, Ek J. A. (1975). The threshold level. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Van, Ek J. A. (1976). The threshold level for modern language learning in schools. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Van, Ek J. A. & Trim, J. L. M. (eds.) (1984). Across the threshold. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Wilkins, D. A. (1972). Grammatical, situational and notional syllabuses. In Verdoodt, A. (ed.) Proceedings of the Third International Congress of Applied Linguistics, Vol. 2. Heidelberg: J. Groos, 1974.Google Scholar
Wilkins, D. A. (1976). Notional syllabuses. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wilkins, D. A., Brumfit, C.J. & Paulston, C.Bratt, (1981). Notional syllabuses revisited, a response, some comments, and a further reply. Applied Linguistics, II, 1. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Widdowson, H. G. (1971). The teaching of rhetoric to students of science and technology. In Science and technology in a second language. London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research.Google Scholar
Widdowson, H. G. (1978 a). Teaching language as communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Widdowson, H. G. (1978 b). Notional—functional syllabuses, part iv. In Blatchford, C. H. & Schachter, J. (eds.), On Tesol '78: EFL policies, programs, practice. Washington, D.C.: TESOL.Google Scholar