Reconceptualizing language teaching: an in-service teacher education course in uzbekistan

By the end of this section, you will be able to…
A) articulate the difference between national standards, curriculum, 
and syllabus; and,
B) identify a rationale behind different types of syllabi and relate them 
to your own institutional syllabus. 
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
Although the majority of teachers do not take part in the creation of 
their language curriculum and institutional syllabi, we believe all should 
have a clear vision and/or understanding of how their classes are a part 
of Uzbekistan’s educational institution. Thus, the goal of this section is to 
help teachers learn the necessary tools they will need to understand how 
their class connects to the course syllabus, curriculum content, and nation-
al standards.
Think about the following:
1) How is a lesson I do with my students connected with the course syl-
labus, which is connected to the university curriculum, which is connected 
to Uzbekistan’s national standards for language education?

---

165
CHAPTER FIVE: FROM SYLLABUS DESIGN TO LESSON PLANNING
UZBEK VIGNETTE 
Researcher
English language teaching specialists conducted a baseline study to 
research the teaching of English for English for Specific Purposes (ESP) 
within higher educational institutions throughout Uzbekistan. One strik-
ing finding was the confusion that university language teachers have 
towards curriculum and syllabus. For example, most have trouble discuss-
ing the differences between these terms, because Uzbekistan language 
teachers often view each as the same thing. Additionally, a syllabi anal-
ysis conducted by English language teaching specialists using content 
analysis methodology revealed there are many mismatches between the 
curriculum of the institution and course syllabi. These findings, and the 
ones listed below, cause great concern.
Findings:
i) Syllabus developers use different terms, such as a Curriculum, Sched-
ule
, and Calendar Plan for the same type of document (i.e., a syllabus). 
ii) Majority of syllabi were derived from the mandated books (i.e., syl-
labus developers take the book prescribed by the ministry and copy top-
ics from the book and thus convert the book into syllabus). Therefore, the 
syllabus reflects the book.
iii) The headings given in syllabi – Grammar Material, Lexical Material 
– emphasize grammar and vocabulary building, even though many syl-
labi claim To develop oral speech. Thus, major skills such listening, reading, 
and writing are not mentioned. 
iv) The description of grammar and phonetic materials (e.g., There is/
there are constructions/Imperative mood/sounds [i] [e]… 
etc.) illustrate the 
gap between the aim of developing communicative competence and the 
structural approach to teaching language employed in most institutions. 
More than the previous findings, the greatest concern arises when 
we compare the content of syllabi with the exit exams, which in most 
cases differ from each other. The exit tests mostly consist of the following: 
1) Read and translate the text; and, 2) Make up a story using the words 
below. These two types of test tasks often do not reflect what is being 
used during the language course. 

---

166
RECONCEPTUALIZING LANGUAGE TEACHING
REFLECTION/ACTION
Look at a syllabus you or your colleagues used for your students. Can 
you see similar problems as the English Language Specialists stated above? 
To what extent are they similar? What changes could you suggest?
KEY CONCEPTS
There are two major key concept areas we would like to address in this 
section: (1) two views of curriculum (i.e., enactment and implementation); 
and, (2) syllabus types (i.e., grammatical; notional/functional; task-based; 
skills-based; lexical; genre; project-based learning; content-based instruc-
tion; and negotiated syllabus). We explain them in detail below.