CCF20110611035

IX. Synthetic and analytic approach to syllabus design

1. Synthetic:    dlOfn {ksLrtfc o{ Lk\fó u'A\^h

M ktyoht ofparciHA^ % ):Qą)u^-LqL. mt luimeri

Dangers:

•    Language leaming is not complete before the entire grammatica! syllabus has been mastered.

•    This strategy is impractical from the learner's point of view because he or she must reorganize the knowledge of forms to match various functions sińce there is no one-to-one correspondence between functions and forms.

2.

Analytic:    JPiwA ^    f1\<X\ - iinOri/Sftc

OJ) tyę>\(^    ___

\\ne    nsf fsćp\Q^r)^<j’bn    Otohce ol JjOl

Otd. ho    and ^aAla.k:hA

C)Af\Ó iOcP

_₇_-_ __„„____3 ond    ,_

jfAf. /Ag nO\ n. A)xJb\bd pud    ^ot ^i^iu^aJmr)

References:

Dakowska M. 2005. Teaching English as a Foreign Language. A Guide for Professionals. Warszawa: PWN p. 98-101

Harmer, J. 2007. The Practice of English Language Teaching. Harlow: Longman p. 364-377 Munby, J. 1994. Communicative Syllabus Design. CUP: Cambridge.

Nunan, D. 1991. Syllabus Design. OUP: Oxford

Scrivener,J. 1994. Learning Teaching. (Mord: Heinemann p. 44-54

Ur, P. 1996. A Course in Language Teaching. Cambridge: CUP p. 176-179