Forward Design

A curriculum-development logic that begins with selection and sequencing of input (the language content learners will encounter), then determines methodology, and only at the end specifies assessment. Named and contrasted with central and backward design by Richards (2013, "Curriculum approaches in language teaching: Forward, central, and backward design", RELC Journal 44(1), 5–33).

The Sequence

Forward design moves input → process → outcome. The designer first answers "what content should the course cover?", settling questions of grammar, vocabulary, skills, functions, or topics, and the order in which they appear. Methodology follows: how the chosen content will be taught, what activities and techniques fit the syllabus. Assessment comes last and tests the input that has been delivered. Richards calls this "the major tradition in language curriculum development", reflecting an assumption that valid course design starts from a defensible map of the language to be learned.

Historical Traditions

Most twentieth-century language teaching was forward-designed, even where designers did not name it as such. Each major syllabus tradition began by specifying what would be taught:

• Structural / grammatical syllabuses ordered grammar items by perceived simplicity or frequency, then built methodology around them. The structural-situational coursebooks of the 1950s–60s and the audiolingual materials that dominated US foreign-language teaching exemplify this logic.
• Notional-functional syllabuses (Wilkins 1976; Council of Europe Threshold Level, van Ek 1975) replaced grammatical units with notions and functions (requesting, apologising, expressing certainty) but kept the design sequence: select inventory, then teach it.
• Lexical syllabuses (Willis 1990; the lexical approach more broadly) substituted high-frequency words and chunks as the input inventory, again specified in advance and sequenced for delivery.
• Skills-based and topic-based syllabuses organise input by macro-skill or content area but share the forward logic: input first, methodology second, assessment last.
• Multi-syllabus coursebooks, the dominant commercial format from the 1990s onwards, combine several inventories (grammar, vocabulary, functions, skills, pronunciation) into a single sequenced map, then deliver them through varied activity types. They are forward-designed across every dimension.

Strengths

Forward design is operationally efficient. A specified syllabus supports textbook authoring, teacher training, and centralised assessment, since all parties can see what the course covers. It scales: large institutions and ministries of education can replicate a forward-designed programme across many sites with reasonable consistency. It accommodates novice teachers who depend on the syllabus and coursebook to organise their work. And it supports public accountability, since the input is auditable.

Critiques

Richards identifies the structural weakness: forward design assumes that delivering specified input reliably produces the intended outcomes, an assumption that classroom research and acquisition research both undermine. Learners do not internalise input on the syllabus's schedule; what is taught is not what is learned; outcomes vary across populations even when input is held constant. Forward design also tends to fix content before learner needs are fully understood, since the syllabus often pre-exists the cohort. Outcomes-oriented critics, drawing on backward-design arguments from Wiggins and McTighe and on competency- and standards-based traditions, argue that specifying outcomes first and working backward yields a tighter alignment between teaching and what learners can demonstrably do.

Place in the Three-Way Contrast

Richards' typology positions forward design alongside central design (which begins with classroom processes and methodology) and backward design (which begins with target outcomes and works back to input). The three are not mutually exclusive; a real programme often combines logics. But the contrast clarifies design choices that previously moved by tradition: a forward-designed coursebook expresses one set of commitments, a backward-designed competency framework another, and the differences are visible in where the design conversation starts.

References

• Richards, J. C. (2013). Curriculum approaches in language teaching: Forward, central, and backward design. RELC Journal, 44(1), 5–33.
• Wilkins, D. A. (1976). Notional Syllabuses. Oxford University Press.
• van Ek, J. A. (1975). The Threshold Level in a European Unit/Credit System for Modern Language Learning by Adults. Council of Europe.
• Willis, D. (1990). The Lexical Syllabus. Collins ELT.