A Flexible Approach to the EGP Syllabus: Why It Is Possible

Concilianus Laos Mbato

Abstract


Curriculum, and its ensuing syllabus, may reflect various competing ideologies rather than merely being a vehicle to promote quality teaching and education. In practice, English teachers may have to encounter and confront an imposed curriculum, and syllabus, in thier EGP classes. Despite such imposition, this article argues that they can and should adopt a flexible approach to the document in order to cater for learners varied and changing learning needs. To achieve the aim, this article draws on theories of curriculum and discusses core issues in the teaching of English for Specific Purposes. A particular focus is then given to teaching practices in EGP classrooms where teachers interpret and implement a curriculum. A flexible model to the syllabus is offered.

Keywords


EGP (English for General Purposes), ESP (English for Specific Purposes), Curriculum, Ideologies, Syllabus, Needs analysis, and a flexible approach

Full Text:

PDF

References


Adamson, B. & Morris, P. (2007). Comparing curricula. In M. Bray, B. Adamson & M (Eds.), Comparative education research: Approach and methods (pp. 263-282). Hongkong: Springer.

Altay, I.F. (2010). A suggested syllabus for advanced writing skill at English language teaching departments. H.U. Journal of Education, 39, 20-31.

Basturkmen, H. (2006). Ideas and options in English for specific purposes. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Criado, R. & Sanchez, A. (2009). English language teaching in Spain: Do textbooks comply

with the official methodological regulations? A sample analysis. IJES, 9(1), 1-28.

Finney, D. (2002). The ELT curriculum: A flexible model for a changing world. In J. C. Richards and W. A. Renandya (Eds). Methodology in language teaching. Anthology of Current Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Flowerdew, F. (2013). Needs analysis and curriculum development in ESP. In B. Paltridge, and S. Starfield, Handbook of English for Specific Purposes (pp. 326-345). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Gatehouse, K. (2004). Key issues in English for specific purposes curriculum development. Retrieved September 28, 2004, from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Gatehouse-ESP.html.

Gibbons, S. (2009). Back to the future? A case study in changing curriculum and assessment:

The story of the London association for the teaching of Englishs alternative O level

English language paper. English in Education, 43(1), 19-31.

Golsby-Smith, S. (2013). Singing from the same songsheet: The flexible thinker and the

curriculum in the 21st century. English in Education, 47(1), 66-78.

Hamilton, D. (1999). Learning about education: An Unfinished curriculum. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.

Hutchinson, T & Waters, A. (1987). English for Specific Purposes. A learning-centred

Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jones, P. (2007). Lessons of the local: Primary English and the relay of curriculum

knowledge. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 30(1), 54-68.

Kneller, G.F. (1964). Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. New York: Jon Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Krahnke, K. (1987). Approaches to Syllabus Design for Foreign LanguageTeaching.

Language in Education: Theory and Practice. Washington: Eric Clearing House.

Lamb, M. (2004). 'It depends on the students themselves': Independent language learning at an Indonesian state school. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 17(3), 229-245.

Marcellino, M. (2008). English language teaching in Indonesia: A continuous challenge in education and cultural diversity. TEFLIN Journal, 19(1), 57-69.

Mbato, C.L. (2004). ESL/EFL Instruction: A convergence of target and learning needs. The 9th ESEA Conference Proceedings, 257-270. Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma University.

Mbato, C.L. (2013). Facilitating EFL learners self-regulation in reading: Implementing a metacognitive approach in a higher education context. EdD thesis, Southern Cross University, Lismore, NSW.

Phelps, R. A. (2002). Mapping the complexity of learning: Journeying beyond the teaching for computer competency to facilitating computer capability. PhD thesis, Southern Cross University, Lismore, NSW.

Short, K.G. & Burke, C.L. (2014). Curriculum as inquiry. Retrieved March 6, 2014, from

Http://www.coe.arizona.edu/sites/default/curriculum_as_ inquiry.pdf. 18-40.

Thanasoulas, D. (2004). Classroom: Forum or arena? Retrieved October 11, 2004, from http://www/tefl.net/Articles /classroom.htm.

Wette, S. (2011).Productprocess distinctions in ELT curriculum theory and practice. ELT

Journal, 65(2), 136-144.

Wette, S. (2010). Professional knowledge in action: How experienced ESOL teachers respond to feedback from learners within syllabus and contextual constraints. System 38, 569-579.

Young, M.F.D. (1998). The Curriculum of the future from the new sociology of education to a critical theory of learning. London: Palmer Press.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.24071/llt.v17i1.275

Article Metrics

Abstract view : 2809 times
PDF view: 843 times

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2016 Concilianus Laos Mbato



Indexed and abstracted in:

    

 

LLT Journal Sinta 2 Certificate (S2 = Level 2)

We would like to inform you that LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Teaching has been nationally accredited Sinta 2 by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Research and Technology of the Republic of Indonesia based on the decree  No. Surat Keputusan 158/E/KPT/2021. Validity for 5 years: Vol 23 No 1, 2020 till Vol 27 No 2, 2024

  

 

This work is licensed under CC BY-SA.

Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

 

Free counters!


 LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Teaching, DOI: https://doi.org/10.24071/llt, e-ISSN 2579-9533 and p-ISSN 1410-7201, is published twice a year, namely in April and October by the English Language Education Study Programme of Teacher Training and Education Faculty of Sanata Dharma University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia.