Language Curriculum Development from a Complex Nonlinear System Perspective (Pembangunan Kurikulum Bahasa daripada Perspektif Sistem Nonlinear yang Kompleks)



The present position paper aims to provide a renewed definition of curriculum development in general and English as a foreign language (EFL) curriculum development in particular. In so doing, it will not only re-conceptualize curriculum development as a multifaceted and dynamic process of interrelated components but also introduce a new direction for looking at curriculum renewal from the lens of complex system theory. To this end, the features of both curriculum development in the field of English language teaching and the features of complex nonlinear systems in physical sciences will be discussed in an attempt to apply the features of the latter to the development of a language curriculum. It has been argued that, as is the case with complex nonlinear systems, a language curriculum can also be considered a complex nonlinear system in which different components are at work and the interactions among them are unpredictable. Furthermore, it has been discussed that the success or failure of a language curriculum will depend not on each single component of the curriculum but is the product of the interrelationships and interactions among the various components. Therefore, the development of a language curriculum should not be considered a step-by-step linear process. Rather, it should be considered as the unpredictable product of the behavior of and interactions among a complex set of variables and factors functioning in a nonlinear complex way.


Curriculum development; complex system theory; nonlinear; English language teaching curriculum

Full Text:



Ahmadian, M.J. & Tavakoli, M. 2011. Exploring the utility of action research to investigate second-language classrooms as complex systems, Educational Action Research 19(2): 121-136.

Brown, J.D. 1995. The Elements of Language Curriculum: A Systematic Approach Program Development. Heinle and Heinle Publishers.

Brown, H.D. 2007. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Pearson Publications.

Briggs, J. 1992. Fractals the Patterns of Chaos. New York Simon and Schuster. In Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition, by Larsen-Freeman, D. Applied Linguistics 8(2): 141-165.

Briggs, J. &. Peat, F. 1989. Turbulent Mirror: An Illustrated Guide to Chaos Theory and the Science of Wholeness. New York: Harper & Row.

Cho, A. 2009. Ourselves and our interactions: The ultimate physics problem? Science 325: 406-08.

Churchland, P. 1988. Matter and Consciousness. Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press.

Corder, S.P. 1967. The significance of learner errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics 5: 161-169.

Davies, P. 1988. The Cosmic Blueprint. New York Simon and Schuster. In Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition, by Larsen-Freeman, D. Applied Linguistics 18(2): 141-165.

Gleick, J. 1987. Chaos making a new science. New York, Penguin Books. In Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition, by Larsen-Freeman, D. Applied Linguistics 18(2): 141-165.

Graves, K. 2000. Designing Language Courses: A Guide for Teachers. Heinle and Heinle Publishers.

Gregg, K.R. 2010. Review article: Shallow draughts: LarsenFreeman and Cameron on complexity. Second Language Research 26(4): 549-560.

Hadley, G. 2003. Relating the curriculum to regional concerns: A Japanese case study. GEMA OnlineTM Journal of Language Studies 3(2).

Kauffman, S. 1991. Anti-chaos and adaptation. Scientific American. August 78-84.

Larsen-Freeman, D. 1997. Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, Applied Linguistics 18(2): 141-165.

Larsen-Freeman, D. & Cameron, L. 2008a. Research methodology on language development from a complex system perspective. Modern Language Journal 92(2): 200-13. Doi: 0026-7902/08/200–213.

Larsen-Freeman, D. & Cameron, L. 2008b. Complex Systems and Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mason, M. 2008. What is complexity theory and what are its implications for educational change?. In Complexity Theory and the Philosophy of Education, edited by M. Mason, 32-45. Singapore: Blackwell.

Nation, I.S.P & Macalister, J. 2010. Language Curriculum Design. Routledge.

Richards, J.C. 1995. The Language Teaching Matrix. Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J.C. 2001. Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J.C. & Schmidt, R. 2002. Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. London: Longman (Pearson) Education.

Soleimani, H. & Alavi, S.M. 2013. A dynamical system approach to research in second language acquisition. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning 11: 127-143.

Tessmer, M. & Wedman, J.F. 1990. A layers-of-necessity instructional development model. Educational Technology Research and Development 38(2): 77-85. [10, 11]. In Nation, I.S.P & Macalister, J. 2010. Language curriculum design. Routledge.

Tudor, I. 2003. Learning to live with complexity: towards an ecological perspective on language teaching. System 31: 1-12.

Weir, C. & Roberts, J. 1994. Program Evaluation in ELT. Blackwell.

Wilkins, D.A. 1979. Notional Syllabuses. Oxford: Oxford University Press


  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

© Malaysian Journal of Education | Jurnal Pendidikan Malaysia
ISSN 2180-0782 | eISSN: 2600-8823