3.4.4.3.5. The Project Syllabus
Legutke & Thomas define the project syllabus as:

... a theme and task-centred mode of teaching and learning which results from a joint process of negotiation between all participants. It allows for a wide scope of self-determined action for both the individual and the small group of learners within a general framework of a plan which defines goals and procedures. Project learning realises a dynamic balance between a process and a product orientation. (Legutke & Thomas 1991:160)

Project-based syllabi can be seen as a special application of the process syllabus, exemplifying process and task-based ideas by being "collaborative, avoiding competition, and lending themselves to analysis of global goals into sub-components which are then delegated to sub-groups, who take responsibility for completing them" (Skehan 1998:273). Dewey and Kilpatrick, writing in the first half of the 19^th century, laid the theoretical and practical foundations of learning by and through experience, seeing the educational project as a "whole-hearted purposeful activity" (Kilpatrick 1918), taking place in a social environment upon which it has a significant impact. Their work had considerable influence on and was paralleled by the educational reform movements in Germany after the first World War, and Soviet educationalists also took up project learning during the revolutionary and post-revolutionary period (cf. Frey 1982). Project learning became a central issue in the 1960s and 1970s in the wake of a radical critique of institutionalised schooling (Illich 1970; Graubard 1972; Reimer 1970; Winkel 1974) and became linked with the idea of a more "convivial society" (Illich 1970) and the democratisation of learning through the introduction of the comprehensive school. Since then project activities in various fields of education have abounded (Struck 1980; Frey 1982), and the term 'project' has become blurred, often being used to mean an activity which "is in some kind of opposition to whatever is considered mainstream educational practice" (Legutke & Thomas 1991:158), with "overgeneralised connotations of freedom as opposed to constraint, and, unfortunately, fun as opposed to serious and responsible work" (Legutke & Thomas 1991:158).

Project-based syllabi have a strong process dimension, but they are also notable for the product which emerges from the process (e.g. oral presentation, drama, written report). This product is seen as part of the process continuum (a means rather than an end), useful for the feedback (and therefore opportunities for assessment) which it gives to the learners concerning their  progress, as well as functioning as a "sort of public record of the project, of which the participants have ownership, and which will give the project some durability" (Skehan 1998:273). Haines (1989) sees the possibility of specialisation within a project and a clearer structure for individual contributions, with the 'public performance' aspect of the product stage encouraging a greater focus on form as well as being a source of evaluative information.

Fried-Booth (1986) suggests a sequence for involving students in project work, in which learners take progressively greater responsibility (cf. "The Way Ahead"). The teacher decides on introductory and bridging topics, but once the introductory stages are over, learners are ready for full-scale projects in which they take wider responsibility for topic choice as well as topic execution. This approach can provide a useful introduction (for teachers and students) to process syllabus ideas, as the teacher gradually hands over control of the learning situation to the students, though Legutke & Thomas (1991:204) emphasise that this should not be viewed as a simple linear process. In the full-scale project, Fried-Booth (1986) suggests three stages that can be matched with Legutke & Thomas' (1991) common structure for projects, following stages of development (table 40, below): 

TABLE 40: STRUCTURES FOR PROJECTS. 

Legutke & Thomas (1991) draw attention to a number of issues which still need to be addressed regarding project work (and therefore the process syllabus):

1.  process: the claim that communication about language learning makes for the authenticity of the communicative classroom (Breen & Candlin 1980; Breen 1985b) "needs to be complemented by documented classroom experiences which explicate a negotiated curriculum in action" (Legutke & Thomas 1991:230). The cyclical nature of expansion of learner skills and interdependence with the teacher also needs to be investigated (Pütt 1978);
2. product: classroom texts become necessary parts of the process continuum and have more value for the students (Carter 1986; Roberts 1988);
3. experience: the claim that the main benefit of project work comes from the extent to which learners are able to learn experientially (Legutke & Thomas 1991:219) is difficult to substantiate, given the lack of evaluative studies of projects themselves or compared with more conventional forms of teaching (cf. the comparative work of Montgomery & Eisenstein [1985]);
4. the co-operative classroom: "Unless the question of how the co-operative teams go about organising their learning linguistically is addressed, we will not be able to take the discussion past the level of conceptual debate into the area of classroom practice" (Legutke & Thomas 1991:229);
5. the individual and the group: the co-operative group has been identified as "the nourishing ground for self-empowerment of the individual" (Legutke & Thomas 1991:235), but there has been a lack of awareness of and research on the specific needs of the individual learner who has difficulties in coping with the demands of the co-operative classroom and the project process. (Legutke & Thomas 1991:235; Skehan 1998);
6. aspects of implementation: Research is needed on the use of the L1 in the process setting: "In monolingual groups, especially at elementary level, it is our view that the role of the mother tongue as an important bridge language in procedural discourse needs to receive a fresh and undogmatic reassessment in view of project learning" (Legutke & Thomas 1991:230; cf. Van Lier, 1988);
7. the institution: location, time factors, rooms, equipment.

Continue reading this literature review: "Conclusion"