The Effect of Negotiated Syllabus on Autonomy of ESP Students: A Mixed Methods Study
محورهای موضوعی : نشریه زبان و ترجمه
Golnaz Peyvandi
1
,
Maryam Azarnoosh
2
,
Masood Siyyari
3
1 - PhD Candidate of TEFL, English Department, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
2 - Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics, English Department, Semnan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Semnan, Iran
3 - Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics, English Department, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
کلید واژه: Autonomy, negotiated syllabus, ESP learner, Mix-methods,
چکیده مقاله :
Autonomy as an essential factor contributing to successful second language learning has been extensively studied in recent decades. Despite the importance of autonomy, the casual effect of the negotiated syllabus on enhancing learner autonomy through empirical studies is understudied. Few studies have attempted to document ESP learners’ experience with the negotiated syllabus. Therefore, this study methodologically contributes to the body of knowledge in autonomy by addressing the gaps mentioned above. This mix-methods research used a quasi-experimental design in the quantitative phase to investigate the effects of the negotiated syllabus on Iranian ESP learners’ (N = 71) autonomy. The experimental treatment was carried out with 32 students in the experimental class over eight weeks. The treatment comprised class-time exposure to a negotiated syllabus co-constructed through negotiation of purposes, contents, methodsو and evaluation. The control group used a pre-designed syllabus. T-test analysis showed a significant increase in the autonomy level of the experimental class in comparison to their counterparts in the control group. Qualitative data collected through semi-structured interview and student journal also confirmed the results. The compelling evidence on the positive effect of negotiated syllabus has different implications for different stakeholders including policymakers and teacher trainers.
استقلال به عنوان عامل مهمی در یادگیری موفق زبان دوم در دهه های اخیر به طور گسترده مورد مطالعه قرار گرفته است. با وجود اهمیت استقلال ، تأثیر برنامه درسی مذاکره ای در تقویت استقلال یادگیرنده از طریق مطالعات تجربی کمترمورد مطالعه قرارگرفته است. تعداد کمی از پژوهش ها به ثبت تجربه یادگیرندگان زبان انگلیسی با اهداف ویژه در برنامه درسی مذاکره ای پرداخته اند. بنابراین ، این مطالعه از نظر روش شناختی با پرداختن به شکافهای ذکر شده ، به بدنه دانش در حوزه استقلال کمک می کند. این تحقیق با روش ترکیبی از یک طرح شبه آزمایشی در مرحله کمی برای بررسی تأثیر برنامه درسی مذاکره شده بر استقلال 71 فراگیر زبان انگلیسی انجام شده است. برنامه تجربی با 32 دانشجو در کلاس آزمایشی طی یک دوره 8 هفته انجام شد. این دوره شامل برگزاری کلاس درسی با برنامه درسی مذاکره از طریق مذاکره اهداف ، محتویات ، روشها و ارزیابی مشترک بود در حالی که گروه کنترل از برنامه درسی از پیش طراحی شده استفاده کردند. تجزیه و تحلیل آزمون تی نشان داد که میزان استقلال کلاس آزمایش نسبت به همتایان خود در کلاس کنترل افزایش معنی داری دارد. داده های کیفی جمع آوری شده از طریق مصاحبه نیمه ساختاری و ژورنال دانشجویی نیز این موضوع را تأیید می کنند.
Ahmadi, R., & Hasani, M. (2018). Capturing student voice on TEFL syllabus design: Agenticity of pedagogical dialogue negotiation. Cogent Education, 5(1), 1522780.
Allahyar, N., & Nazari, A. (2012). Potentiality of Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory in exploring the role of teacher perceptions, expectations and interaction strategies. WoPaLP, 6, 79-92.
Almusharraf, N. (2018). English as a foreign language learner autonomy in vocabulary development. . Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning, 11(2), 159-177.
Atai, M. R., & Khazaee, M. (2014). Exploring Iranian EAP Teachers' Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Their Professional Identity. Issues in Language Teaching, 3(1), 35-31.
Azarnoosh, M., & Kargozari, H. R. (2018). Negotiated syllabuses. In A. Faravani, M. Zeraatpishe, M. Azarnoosh, & H. R. Kargozari (Eds.), Issues in syllabus design (pp. 135-147). Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 25, 3186–3191.
Benson, P. (2013). Teaching and researching: Autonomy in language learning: Routledge.
Boon, A. (2011). Negotiated syllabuses: Do you want to. Case studies in language curriculum design: Concepts and approaches in action around the world, 166-177.
Breen, M. P., & Littlejohn, A. (2000). The significance of negotiation. Classroom decision-making: Negotiation and process syllabuses in practice, 5-38.
Chirema, K. D. (2007). The use of reflective journals in the promotion of reflection and learning in post-registration nursing students. Nurse education today, 27(3), 192-202.
Clarke, D. F. (1991). The negotiated syllabus: what is it and how is it likely to work? Applied Linguistics, 12(1), 13-28.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Los Angeles: Sage.
Dafei, D. (2007). An exploration of the relationship between learner autonomy and English proficiency. Asian EFL Journal, 24(4), 24-34.
Doğan, G., & Mirici, İ. H. (2017). EFL instructors' perception and practices on learner autonomy in some Turkish universities. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 13(1), 166-193.
Ennis, J. M., & Prior, J. (2020). Approaches to English for Specific and Academic Purposes: Perspectives on Teaching and Assessing in Tertiary and Adult Education: bu, press.
Eslami, Z. R. (2010). Teachers' Voice vs. Students' Voice: A Needs Analysis Approach to English for Acadmic Purposes (EAP) in Iran. English Language Teaching, 3(1), 3-11.
Farivar, A., & Rahimi, A. (2015). The impact of CALL on Iranian EFL learners’ autonomy. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192, 644-649.
Ghodrati, M., Ashraf, H., & Khalil, M. (2014). Improvement of Iranian EFL learners’ autonomy through task-based speaking activities. International Journal of Multidisciplinary and Current Research, 2(4), 1002-1008.
Hsieh, H.-C., & Hsieh, H.-L. (2019). Undergraduates’ out-of-class learning: Exploring EFL students’ autonomous learning behaviors and their usage of resources. Education Sciences, 9(3), 159.
Jing, H. (2006). Learner resistance in metacognition training? An exploration of mismatches between learner and teacher agendas. Language Teaching Research, 10(1), 95-117.
Karimi, S., & Dastgoshadeh, A. (2018). The effect of strategy-based instruction on EAP students’ reading performance and reading autonomy. Cogent Education, 5(1), 1527981.
Kenny, B. (1993). Investigative research: How it changes learner status. TESOL Quarterly, 27(2), 217-231.
Kimaz, z. (2019). The use of call to foster learner autonomy in EFL: a quasi-experimental study (Master’s dissertation). Middle East technical university).
Lan, Y.-J. (2018). Technology enhanced learner ownership and learner autonomy through creation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(4), 859-862.
Little, D. (1990). Autonomy in language learning. Teaching modern languages, 81-87.
Little, D (1995). Learning as dialogue: The dependence of learner autonomy on teacher autonomy. System, 23(2), 175-188. doi: 10.1016/0346-251x(95)00006-
Littlejohn, A. (1997). Self-access work and curriculum ideologies. Autonomy and independence in language learning, 181-191.
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.
Mackey, A., Gass, S. M., & Margolis, D. P. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mackey, A., Gass, S. M., & Margolis, D. P. (2006). Second language research: Methodology and design. r {lzvs, 9(1), 175.
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.
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.
Montazeri, M., Fekri, N., & Hamidi, H. NEGOTIATED SYLLABUS: A REALIZATION OF LEARNER AUTONOMY.
Montazeri, M., Fekri, N., & Hamidi, H. (2015). Negotiated syllabus: A realization of learner autonomy. Journal of Language Teaching: Theory and Practice, 1(1), 9.
Nation, I. S. P., & Maclister, J. (2010). Language curriculum design. New York & London: Routledge.
Natri, T. (2007). Active learnership in continuous self-and peer-evaluation. In Reconstructing autonomy in language education (pp. 108-119): Springer.
Ng, S. F., Confessore, G. J., & Abdullah, M. (2012). Learner autonomy coaching: enhancing learning and academic success. International journal of mentoring and coaching in education.
Nguyen, N. T. (2011). Syllabus negotiation: A case study in a tertiary EFL context in Vietnam. Language Education in Asia, 2(1), 71-91.
Nunan, D. (1988). The learner-centred curriculum: A study in second language teaching: Cambridge University Press.
Öztürk. (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), 35-39.
Pennycook, A. (1997). Cultural alternatives and autonomy'in P. Benson and P. Voller (eds.): Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning. In: London: Longman.
Pershukova, O., Nikolska, N., & Vasiukovych, O. (2020). Fostering students’ autonomy in learning English in nonlinguistic university. Paper presented at the SHS Web of Conferences.
Peyvandi, G., Azarnoosh, M., & Siyyari, M. (2020). The Effect of Negotiated Syllabus on the Reading Comprehension of ESP Students. Journal of Language and Translation, 9(4), 121-133.
Ponton, M. K., & Rhea, N. E. (2006). Autonomous learning from a social cognitive perspective. New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development, 20(2), 38-49.
Ramírez Espinosa, A. (2015). Fostering autonomy through syllabus design: A step-by-step guide for success. How, 22(2), 114-134.
Reinders, H. (2010). Towards a classroom pedagogy for learner autonomy: A framework of independent language learning skills. Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online), 35(5), 40.
Richards, J., & Schmidt, R. (2010). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics Harlow: Longman Group UK Limited.
Satariyan, A., & Mohseni, A. (2014). Writing skill and categorical error analysis: A study of first year undergraduate university students. Research in English Language Pedagogy, 2(1), 20-30.
Satariyan, A., & Reynolds, B. (2016). A reflective model for action research: An evolving pedagogical trajectory. In What is Next in Educational Research? (pp. 21-28): Brill Sense.
Sewell. (2005). Syllabus types in a Korean context: Syllabus and materials: Birmingham: University of Birmingham.
Spratt, M., Humphreys, G., & Chan, V. (2002). Autonomy and motivation: Which comes first? Language Teaching Research, 6(3), 245-266.
Sprenger, T. M., & Wadt, M. P. S. (2008). Autonomy development and the classroom: Reviewing a course syllabus. DELTA: Documentação de Estudos em Lingüística Teórica e Aplicada, 24(spe), 551-576.
Stake. (2000). Case studies. In N. K. D. Y. S. Lincoln (Ed.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 435-454). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tavakoli, M., & Tavakol, M. (2018). Problematizing EAP education in Iran: A critical ethnographic study of educational, political, and sociocultural roots. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 31, 28-43.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes: Harvard university press.
Yin, R. K., & SAGE. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods: SAGE Publications.
Zhang, L., & Li, X. (2004). A Comparative study on learner autonomy between Chinese students and West European students. Foreign Language World, 4, 15-23.
