Kemp’s Instructional Design Model

14 Figure 2.1: Kemp’s Instructional Design Model Kemp, 1977, p. 13

b. Yalden’s Instructional Design Model

Yalden 1987 stated that the language program development was connected with the specification of syllabus construction p. 85. From this, she said that the designer conducted communicative use of language as well as linguistic structure and general usage. In her book, she revealed steps of designing materials pp. 88-89. They were: 1 Needs survey Yalden 1987 stated that need survey, “entailed carrying out a survey of the communicative needs of the learners for whom the program was being 15 prepared as well as a survey of the physical resources at hand” p. 88. Further, he revealed, “needs survey also included the learner’s own desires or wants, seen more subjectively in terms of self-expression and less in terms of purposeful or transactional communicative behavior” p. 103. 2 Description of purpose Yalden 1987 conveyed that the more accurately the teacher can predict learners’ needs, the more clearly a purpose could be delineated p. 105. 3 Selection or development syllabus type Yalden 1987 delivered that no single model of syllabus design which was accepted universally p. 108. Then, she assumed communicative as the way to represent the environment of real language use, and communicative syllabus existed here p. 109. There were types of communicative syllabus. They were: a Structural-Functional Type Yalden 1987 said, “this was a separation of the two components of form and communicative function was maintained, and it was relatively implemented” p. 110. b Structures and Function Type Related to this, Brumfit stated that it was sensible to provide learners with the tools for linguistic system rather than teaching them about what to do with the tools, since cultural and language meaning was argued between users of a language as cited in Yalden, 1987, p. 111. Then, this type of syllabus helped the designer to develop the methodology by focusing on accuracy and fluency. 16 c Variable Focus Type Allen introduced this type of communicative syllabus, where a three-level ESL syllabus was synthesized. This type emphasized the change of formal features language to rhetorical discourse features, to the instrumental use of language as cited in Yalden, 1987, p. 114. d Functional Type Yalden 1987 said that objectives were stated primarily in terms of communication functions, not in terms of linguistic or ideational content p. 115. e Fully Notional Type Wilkins defined , “This type was the strongest possible approach to the input syllabus” as cited in Yalden, 1987, p. 115. This syllabus did not require the elaboration of the subject. Yalden 1987 stated that the notional syllabus depended on the context and put a concern to what to communicate when people spoke or wrote pp. 42-43. f Fully Communicative Type Yalden 1987 said that this would be the minimal input syllabus, since this was out of a concern with methodological problems and solutions p. 116. However, Allwright suggested the teacher could use this type of syllabus to solve communication problem and language learning would run smoothly as cited in Yalden, 1987, p. 118. 17 4 Production of proto-syllabus Yalden 1987 said that at this step the syllabus designer would consider the description of syllabus content, such as the preparation of syllabus specifications p. 138. However, there were some considerations before the designer thought in beginning. First, it was not always possible to include all things the designer needed in teaching the subject. The designer tried to reduce the process to manageable proportions. Second, the designer described the general purpose of the course at an early stage. Third, the specification of target levels should be conveyed with early attention p. 139. 5 Production of pedagogical syllabus Yal den 1987 said, “this was some of the apparent difficulties surrounding early formulations of the functional approach could be resolved” p. 143. Since the components produced in the proto-syllabus stage were only viewed as the guidelines, the components in this pedagogical syllabus were a specification of what to learn in the course. 6 Development and implementation of classroom procedures When the designer developed the procedures, he had to focus on selection of exercise types and teaching techniques, and preparation of lesson plans and of weekly schedules. Then for implementation, the designer had to focus on the principles, desired outcome, and exploitation or creation of teaching material. 18 7 Evaluation Here, the designer had to evaluate students, program or developed materials, and teaching. 8 Recycling stage This was a revision of the goals, the content, and the methodological procedures in the product. Figure 2.2: Yalden’s Instructional Design Model Yalden, 1987, p. 88