CURRICULUM AND SYLLABUS DESIGN IN EFL TEACHING: FROM STRUCTURAL TO CEFR FRAMEWORK
Abstract
While many studies discuss curriculum design or the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) separately, few have systematically mapped how different syllabus types correspond to CEFR proficiency levels. This conceptual review aims to address that gap by synthesizing theoretical and empirical perspectives on curriculum and syllabus development in English language teaching. Employing a qualitative library research approach, the study integrates findings from key literature and policy documents to construct a framework that links syllabus types—structural, functional, situational, task-based, and content-based—to CEFR descriptors across proficiency levels (A1–C2). The analysis reveals that structural syllabi best support beginners, while functional, situational, and task-based models enhance intermediate to advanced communicative competence. The study contributes conceptually by clarifying the relationship between curriculum scope and syllabus function and practically by offering a reference for teachers to design level-appropriate instruction and for policymakers to adapt global standards to local educational contexts.
References
Cowling, J. D. (2007). Needs analysis: Planning a syllabus for a series of intensive workplace courses at a leading Japanese company. English for Specific Purposes, 26(4), 426–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2006.10.003
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press
Handayani, D. F., & Zaim. (2023). Urgensi filsafat bahasa dalam pengembangan kurikulum pembelajaran bahasa berbasis outcome-based education. Jurnal Filsafat Indonesia, 6(2), 213–219. https://doi.org/10.23887/jfi.v6i2.56834
Keumala Sari, B., Rahmati, R., & Rahmi, R. (2023). Urgensi kemampuan berbahasa Inggris era globalisasi. Jurnal Malikussaleh Mengabdi, 2(2), 475–479. https://doi.org/10.29103/jmm.v2i2.14770
Latifa, H., Ratih, K., & Maryadi, M. (2023). Implementing the Merdeka curriculum in English language teaching: A study of teacher learning steps. VELES (Voices of English Language Education Society), 7(3), 640–651. https://doi.org/10.29408/veles.v7i3.24049
Little, D. (2006). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Content, purpose, origin, reception and impact. Language Teaching, 39(3), 167–190. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444806003557
Long, M. H., & Crookes, G. (1991). Three approaches to task-based syllabus design. TESOL Quarterly, 25(1), 27–56. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587037
Mauludani, S., Pebriani, R., Fadhillah, H. A., & Suci, A. (2025). Peran komponen kurikulum dalam pembelajaran sastra lokal di SMAN 1 Cikarang Utara. Prawara: Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa dan Sastra Indonesia, 6(1). http://jos.unsoed.ac.id/index.php/jpbsi/index
Ministry of Education and Training (MOET). (2018). General education English language curriculum (Hanoi). Ministry of Education and Training.
Nation, I. S. P., & Macalister, J. (2010). Language curriculum design. Routledge.
North, B. (2000). The development of a common framework scale of language proficiency. Peter Lang.
North, B., & Piccardo, E. (2019). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Companion volume with new descriptors. Council of Europe Publishing. https://rm.coe.int/cefr-companion-volume-with-new-descriptors-2018/1680787989
Puranen, P., & Taalas, P. (2021). Aligning curricula with CEFR: Teacher perceptions and challenges. Language Learning in Higher Education, 11(2), 215–234. https://doi.org/10.1515/cercles-2021-0012
Richards, J. C. (2015). Key issues in language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Riza, S., & Barrulwalidin, B. (2023). Ruang lingkup metode pembelajaran. Islamic Pedagogy: Journal of Islamic Education, 1(2), 120–131. https://doi.org/10.52029/ipjie.v1i2.157
Robinson, P. (2001). Task-based syllabus design: Selecting, grading, and sequencing tasks. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 287–313). Pearson Education.
Rosmana, S. P., Sofyan, I., Fauziah, H., Azzifah, N., & Khamelia, W. (2022). Kebebasan dalam kurikulum prototype. As-Sabiqun: Jurnal Pendidikan Islam Anak Usia Dini, 4(1), 115–131. https://ejournal.stitpn.ac.id/index.php/assabiqun
Sahragard, R., & Ansaripour, E. (2014). The effect of CEFR-aligned task-based instruction on Iranian EFL learners’ academic writing. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 5(5), 1120–1129. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.5.5.1120-1129
Tomlinson, B. (Ed.). (2011). Materials development in language teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Trim, J. L. M. (2010). Breakthrough in foreign language education: The Council of Europe and modern languages. Council of Europe Publishing.
Zalza, N. (Nurhaliza). (2024). Penggunaan aplikasi ELSA Speak pada pembelajaran bahasa Inggris untuk meningkatkan kemampuan pronunciation [Undergraduate thesis, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia]. UPI Repository. https://repository.upi.edu
