The Effect of Negotiated Syllabus on the Reading Comprehension of ESP Students

Subject Areas : All areas of language and translation

Golnaz Peyvandi ¹ , Maryam Azarnoosh ² , Masood Siyyari ³

1 - PhD candidate of TEFL, Department of English, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
2 - Assistant Professor of TEFL, Department of English, Semnan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Semnan, Iran
3 - Assistant Professor of TEFL, Department of English, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

Received: 2020-02-15 Accepted : 2020-02-15 Published : 2019-10-01

Keywords: reading comprehension, ESP, Curriculum, negotiated syllabus, Higher Education,

Abstract :

Negotiated syllabus addresses learners‟ needs and assists them in developing their own on-going syl- labus through shared decision-making in the classroom. Many studies focus on the effect of this learner-centered syllabus on language learning. However, few studies exist on its effect on the reading ability of language learners, especially in the area of English for specific purposes (ESP). To address this gap, this quasi-experimental pre-test post-test intact group design examined if negotiated syllabus has any significant effect on developing the reading comprehension of ESP students. To this end, 32 students in the experimental group were given the choice to design a negotiated syllabus through col- laboration while 39 students in the control group received a pre-designed syllabus. The data analysis showed that the ESP learners in the experimental group outperformed their counterparts in the control group on the reading post-test. The results of this study have implications for authorities in higher education, educational policy makers, and teacher professional development in ELT and ESP in par- ticular which are discussed in detail in the paper.

References:

Abbasian, G., & Seyed-Hendi, N. (2011). The effect of explicit negotiated syllabus ondeveloping speaking ability and affective variables. Journal of Language and Translation, 2(1), 1927.doi: 10.4304/ tpls.3.8.1399-1405. 

Abbasian, G., & Malardi, P. (2013). The effect of negotiated syllabus on EFL learners writing ability and self-efficacy. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(8), 1399-1405.

Ahmadi, R., Hasani, M. (2018). Capturing student voice on TEFL syllabus design:

      Agenticity of pedagogical dialogue negotiation. Cogent Education, 5, 1-17.

Akbari, Zahra. (2014). Academic English Needs of Iranian Paramedical Students and Practitioners: An ESP Context. International Journal of Language and Applied Linguistics  World. 5 (2) pp. 274-286.

Allahyar, N. (2015). Teachers’ perceptions, interaction patterns and strategies towards IranianStudents‘willingnessto communicate or reticence (Unpublished Master’s thesis) university Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia

Atai, M. R. (2002). EAP curriculum planning in Iran: An incoherent educational experience. Special  Issue of the Journal of Faculty of Letters and Humanities Teacher TrainingUniversity, 9(3), 17-34.

Atai, M. R., & Nazari, O. (2011). Exploring reading comprehension needs of Iranian EAPstudents of  health information management (HIM): A triangulated approach. System, 39, 30-43.

Azarnoosh, M., & Kargozari, H. R.  (2018). Negotiated syllabuses. In M. Azarnoosh, M. Zeraatpishe, A. Faravani, & H. R. Kargozari (Eds.), Issues in syllabus design (pp.135–147). Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Baghbaderani, A.B., & Afghari, A. (2015). The impact of process-oriented syllabus on L2 writing ability: Focusing on young and adult Iranian intermediate EFL learners. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2(7), 60-79.

Behafarin,S.R.,& Mahdavi,K.(2010). Assessing Reading Comprehension Strategies under Three Learning Conditions. Journal of Language and Translation, (1)1, 63-72.

Boon, A. (2011). Negotiated syllabuses: Do you want to? In Nation, I. S. P. & Macalister, J.(2010). Case Studies in Language Curriculum Design. New York: Routledge.

Breen, M. (1984). Process syllabus for the language classroom. In C. J. Brumfit (Ed.), General English syllabus design ELT Document (pp 47-60). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Breen, M.P. (1987). Contemporary paradigms in syllabus design, part I. Language Teaching, 20(2), 157-174.

Breen, M. P., & Littlejohn, A. (2000).       Classroom decision making. Cambridge. Cambridge UniversityPress.

Brooks, J.G., & Brooks, M.G. (1993). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language            learning and teaching. New York: Longman.

Eslami, Z. R. (2010). Teachers’ voice vs. students’ voice: A needs analysis approach to English for academic purposes (EAP) in Iran. English Language Teaching, 3 (1), 3–11. doi:10.5539/elt.v3n1p3

Clarke, D.F. (1991). Applied Linguistics, 12(1), 13-28. doi: 10.1093/applin/12.1.13

Farhady, H. (2006). Reflections on and directions for ESP materials development in  SAMT.In Kiani & Khayamdar (eds.) Proceedings of the First National  ESP/EAP   Conference, 3 (pp.2-32), Tehran, SAMT Publication.

Ghaemi, F., Daftarifard, P., & Shirkhani, S. (2011). Iranian students' performance on the IELTS: A question of achievement. Journal on English Language Teaching, 1(3), 30-38

Ghodrati, M., Ashraf, H., & Motallebzadeh,       Kh. (2014). Improvement of Iranian EFL learners’ autonomy through task-based speaking activities’ International Journal of Multidisciplinary and Current Research, 1(2). 

Hosney, M. (2013). From syllabus design to      curriculum development. Linguistik Terapan, 3(1). Retrieved from https://jlt-polinema.org

Kim, J. S. (2005). The effects of a constructivist teaching approach on student academic achievement, self-concept, and learning strategies. Asia Pacific Education Review, 6, 1, 7-   19.

Khademi Shamami.A. (2004). The Effect of the implementation of a negotiated syllabus on the reading achievement of Iranian intermediate-level EFL Learners (Unpublished Master’s thesis) University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran.

Lightbrown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1999). How languages are learned. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Ma, Z., & Gao, P. (2010). Promoting learner autonomy through developing process. Syllabus-syllabus negotiation: The basis of learner autonomy. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(6), 901-908. doi:10.4304/jltr.1.6.901-908

Marashi, H., & Khatami, H. (2017). Using cooperative learning to boost creativity and motivation in language learning. Journal of Language and Translation, 7(1), 43-58.

McAdoo, B., & Manwaring, M. (2009). Teaching for implementation: Designing negotiation curricula to maximize long-Term learning. Negotiation Journal, 25, 2, 195-215.

Mohseni, A., & Satariyan, A. (2017). A Brief Review: The Meeting Point of Language Learning and Translation. Journal of Language and Translation, 7(4), 79-84.

Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and
design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Moattarian, A., & Tahririan, M. H. (2014). Language needs of graduate students and ESPcourses: The case of tourism management in Iran. RALs, 5 (2), 4-22.

Nation,I.S.P ., & Maclister. (2010). Language     curriculum design. New York & London: Routledge.

Nunan, D. (1988). The learner-centered          curriculum. Cambridge: CUP.

Nguyen, N. T. (2011). Syllabus Negotiation: A case study in a tertiary EFL context in Vietnam.Language Education in Asia, 2(1), 71-91.

Öztürk. G. (2013) .A negotiated syllabus: potential advantages and drawbacks in English preparatory programs at universities, International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, 4(2), pp. 35-9.

Rezai, A., Rahimi, M. A., & Talepasan, S.       (2012). Exploring EFL learners reading

       Comprehension problems in reading ESP texts. Sino-US English Teaching, 9(3), 982-987.

Rahmanpanah,H.(2015). Negotiated Syllabus and autonomous motivation: a self-

     determination theory perspective. Proceedings of Sharif ELT Conference, 1-14.

Rahmanpanah, H. & Mohseni, A. (2017). Engagement and motivation in EFL classroom: Humanizing   the course book or autonomy-supportive teaching climate? Journal of Language and Translation, 7(1), 69 http://ttlt.azad.ac.ir/article_529575.html

Runco M. A. (2004). Creativity. Retrieved,        November 5, 2016, from:     www.arjournals.annualreviews.org.

Uztosun, M. S. (2013). The role of student negotiation in improving the speaking ability of Turkish university EFL students: An action research study (Unpublished EdD Thesis). University of Exeter, England, UK.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Yarmohammadi, L. (2005). ESP in Iran from language planning perspective. Proceedings of the First National ESP/EAP Conference, 2, 2-20. The Center for Research and Development in Humanities of SAMT. Tehran.