اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 33 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 769 |
| تعداد مقالات | 7,457 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 12,441,761 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 8,469,572 |
Negotiated Syllabus and Undergraduate Students Reading Comprehension and Oral Production Ability: Teachers’ and Learners’ Perspectives | ||
| Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies | ||
| مقاله 1، دوره 13، شماره 2، اسفند 2021، صفحه 1-18 اصل مقاله (347.4 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Research Paper | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22111/ijals.2021.6472 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Ali Pakdaman1؛ Goudarz Alibakhshi* 2؛ Abdollah Baradaran1 | ||
| 1Department of English Language, Islamic Azad University, Central Tehran Branch, Tehran, Iran | ||
| 2Department of Research in Education, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran | ||
| چکیده | ||
| The negotiated syllabus, also known as a learner-centered and process-oriented syllabus, was introduced as an alternative to a pre-determined syllabus a couple of decades ago. The review of the related studies shows the number of studies in the use of negotiated syllabus in English language teaching is scanty. This study aimed at delving into the impacts of the negotiated syllabus on undergraduate students’ reading comprehension, oral production, and the participants’ perspectives about the syllabus. A mixed-methods research design was employed. Data were collected through researcher-developed tests and an interview checklist. The quantitative section analyzed through independent samples-tests (p=0.05) verified that the negotiated syllabus had a significant effect on the experimental mean scores regarding reading comprehension and oral ability production. In addition, results of the qualitative phase indicated that the use of negotiated syllabus, despite some learner, teacher, and institute-related constraints, has some pedagogical advantages. In light of the results, teachers are recommended to minimize the limitations and implement the negotiated syllabus in teaching English programs to optimize the language learners’ motivation and language achievement. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| negotiated syllabus؛ reading comprehension؛ oral production؛ learners’ perspectives | ||
| مراجع | ||
ReferencesAbbasian, G. R., & Seyed-Hendi, N. (2011). The effect of the explicit negotiated syllabus on developing speaking ability and affective variables. Journal of Language and Translation, 2(1), 19-27.
Peyvandi, G., Azarnoosh, M., & Siyyari, M. (2019). The effect of the negotiated syllabus on the reading comprehension of ESP students. Journal of Language and Translation, 9(4), 121-133.
Abbasian, G. R., & Malardi, P. (2013). The effect of the negotiated syllabus on EFL learners’ writing ability and self-efficacy. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(8), 1399-1405. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.3.8.1399-1405
Abdelmalak, M. (2015). Participatory curriculum planning: Students’ perceptions. Curriculum and Teaching, 30(1), 67–84.
Alibakhshi, G. (2015). Challenges in promoting EFL learners’ autonomy: Iranian EFL teachers’ perspectives. Issues in Language Teaching Journal, 1, 101-120.
Alibakhshi, G., & Rezaei, S. (2014). The consequences of violation of critical pedagogy principles from EFL teacher trainers’ perspectives. Iranian Journal of Second Language Studies, 5(2), 1-28.
Alrabai, F. (2014a). A model of foreign language anxiety in the Saudi EFL context. English Language Teaching, 7(7), 82-101.
Alrabai, F. (2014b). Motivational practices in English as foreign language classes in Saudi Arabia: Teachers beliefs and learners perceptions. Arab World English Journal, 5(1), 224-246.
Alrabai, F., & Moskovsky, C. (2016). The relationship between learners’ affective variables and second language achievement. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ), 7(2), 1-28.
Altman, H. B., & Cashin, W. E. (1992). Writing a syllabus. https://www.ideaedu.org/wp-content/ uploads/2014/11/Idea_Paper_27.pdf
Azarnoosh, M., & Kargozari, H. R. (2018). Negotiated syllabuses. In M. Azarnoosh, M. Zeraatpishe, A. Faravani, & H. R. Kargozari, Issues in syllabus design (pp. 135–147). 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.
Baldauf, R. B., & Moni, K. (2006). Learner-centeredness in Teaching English as a Foreign Language. Thai.
Bhandarkar, P. L., & Wilkinson. (1999). Methodology And Techniques Of Social Research. Himalaya Publishing House.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education An introduction to theory and methods (2nd ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
Boomer, G., Lester, N., Onore, C., & Cook, J. (1992). Negotiating the curriculum: Educating for the 21st century. Falmer.
Boon, A. (2011). Negotiated syllabuses: Do you want to?. In J. Macalister, & I. P. Nation, Case studies in language curriculum design (pp. 166–178). Routledge.
Breen, M. P., & Littlejohn, A. (2000a). The practicalities of negotiation. In M. P. Breen, & A. Littlejohn, Classroom decision making: Negotiation and process syllabuses in practice (pp. 272–296). CUP.
Breen, M. P., & Littlejohn, A. (2000b). The significance of negotiation. In M. P. Breen, & A. Littlejohn, Classroom decision making: Negotiation and process syllabuses in practice (pp. 5–39). CUP.
Brown, D. (1995). Teaching by principles-An Interactive approach to language pedagogy. Prentice Hall.
Brown, J. K. (2008). Student-centered Instruction: Involving students in their own education. Music Educators Journal, 94(4), 40-52.
Clark, J. L. (1987). Curriculum renewal in school foreign language learning. Oxford University Press.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education (7th ed.). Routledge.
Cullen, R., & Harris, M. (2009). Assessing learner-centredness through course syllabi. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(1), 115-125.
DiClementi, J. D., & Handelsman, M. M. (2005). Empowering students: Class-generated course rules. Teaching of Psychology, 32, 18–21.
Duckworth, E. (2009). Helping Students get to where ideas can find them. The New Educator, 5(3).
Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Education research, an introduction. Longman Publishers.
Gourlay, L. (2005). Directions and indirect action: Learner adaptation of a classroom task. ELT Journal, 59(3), 209–216.
Harrington, C. M., & Gabert-Quillen, C. A. (2015). Syllabus length and use of images: An empirical investigation of student perceptions. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 1, 235–243.
Huang, J. (2006). Fostering learner autonomy within constraints: Negotiation and mediation in an. Prospect: An Australian Journal of TESOL, 21(3), 38-57.
Johnson, R. (1989). A decision-making framework for the coherent language curriculum. In R. K. Johnson, The Second language curriculum (pp. 1- 23). Cambridge University Press.
Little, D. (1995). Learning as dialogue: The dependence of learner autonomy on teacher autonomy. System, 23(2), 175–181.
Littlejohn, A. (1998). Sharing decisions with students: Some whys, how’s, and how nots. http://www.andrewlittlejohn.net
Littlejohn, A. P. (1983). Increasing learner involvement in course management. TESOL Quarterly, 17(4), 595–608.
Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. In C. Doughty, & J. Williams, Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15-41). Cambridge University Press.
Lynch, D. N. (2010). Student-centered learning: The approach that better benefits students. Wesleyaan Collage.
MacKay, A., Oates, K., & Haig, Y. (2000). Negotiated evaluation in a primary ESL context. In P. Breen, & A. Littlejohn, Classroom decision making: Negotiation and process syllabuses in practice (pp. 44–55). CUP.
Malmir, A., & & Bagheri, M. (2019). Instructors and learners’ attitudes about English for science and technology: Learning and target needs of mechanical engineering students. Iranian Journal of English for Academic Purposes (IJEAP), 8(1), 17-34.
Martyn, E. (2000). Syllabus negotiation in a school of nursing. In M. P. Breen, & A. Littlejohn, Classroom decision making: Negotiation and process syllabuses in practice (pp. 150–163). Cambridge: CPU.
Mollaei, F. (2013). Concepts of negotiated syllabus and assessments in EFL setting. Journal of Studies in Learning and Teaching English, 1(4), 103–115.
Nation, I. P., & Macalister, J. (2010). Language curriculum design. Routledge.
Nguyen, N. T. (2010). Negotiating tasks in listening and speaking classes at DELL of USSH, HCM City [Master’s thesis]. Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam: University of Social Sciences and Humanities.
Nguyen, T. C. (2017). Aligning English for specific purposes (ESP) curriculum with industry needs: Language practices for Vietnam’s globalised workplaces Queensland University of Technology.
Nunan, D. (1989). Hidden agendas: The role of the learner in program implementation. In R. K. Johnson, The second language curriculum (pp. 176–187). CUP.
Nunan, D. (1989). Hidden agendas: The role of the learner in program implementation. In R. K. Johnson, The second language curriculum (pp. 176-187). CPU.
Nunan, D. (1999). Second Language Teaching and Learning. Heinle and Heinle Publishers.
Nunan, D. (2001). Teaching grammar in context. In C. Candlin, & N. Mercer, English language teaching in its social context (pp. 191-199). Routledge.
Nunan, D. (2005). Important tasks of English education: Asia-wide and beyond. The Asian EFL Journal, 7(3), 1-159.
Ozturk, G. (2013). Negotiated syllabus: Potential advantages and drawbacks in English preparatory programs at universities. International Journal on New Trends in Education and their Implications, 4(2), 33-39.
Peyton, J. K., More, S. K., & Young, S. (2010, May). Evidence-based, student-centered instructional practices. Center for Applied Linguistic. https://cal.org/caelanetwork
Peyvandi, G., Azarnoosh, M., & Siyyari, M. (2019, winter). The Effect of Negotiated Syllabus on the Reading Comprehension of ESP. Journal of Language and Translation, 9(4), 121-133.
Rahmanpanah, H., & Tajeddin, Z. (2015). Investigating a systematic approach to the promotion of EFL learners’ autonomy. Journal of Language and Translation, 5(1), 17-31.
Richards, J. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J., & Schmitt, R. (2010). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied Linguistics. Longman Publications.
Richmond, A. S., Boysen, G. A., & Gurung, R. R. (2016a). The model teacher: An evidence-based guide for college and university teaching. Routledge.
Richmond, A. S., Boysen, G. A., Gurung, R. R., Tazeau, Y. N., Meyers, S. A., & Sciutto, M. J. (2014). Aspirational model teaching criteria for psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 41, 281–295.
Richmond, A. S., Slattery, J., Morgan, R., Mitchell, N., & Becknell, J. (2016b). Can a learner-centered syllabus change students’ perceptions of student-professor rapport and master teacher behaviors? Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 2, 159-168.
Salehizadeh, S., Shabani, M., & Malmir, A. (2020). Professionalism: The perceptions of Iranian English teachers of competence and performance in language teaching. Iranian Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(1), 1-14.
Sarani, A., Alibakhshi, G., & Molazehi, H. (2014). On the application of critical pedagogy principles by ELT instructors and subject Teachers: A Case of Iranian Universities. Research in applied Linguistics,5(2), 41-56.
Saville, B. K., Zinn, T. E., Brown, A. R., & Marchuk, K. A. (2010). Syllabus detail and students’ perceptions of teacher effectiveness. Teaching of Psychology, 37, 186–189.
Serrano-Sampedro, I. (2000). Refining negotiated classroom work in a Spanish secondary school. In M. P. Breen, & A. Littlejohn, Classroom decision making: Negotiation and process syllabuses in practice (pp. 108–133). CUP.
Shabbah, S. S. (2018). English language syllabuses: Definition, types, design, and selection. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ), 9(2), 127-142.
Sinclair, B. (2008). Multiple voices: Negotiating pathways towards teacher and learner autonomy. In T. Lamb, & H. Reinders, Learner and teacher autonomy: Concepts, realities, and responses (pp. 237-269). John Benjamins.
Smith, K. (2000). Negotiating assessment with secondary-school pupils. In M. P. Breen, & A. Littlejohn, Classroom decision making: Negotiation and process syllabuses in practice (pp. 55–63). CUP.
Ushioda, E. (2003). Motivation as a socially mediated process. In D. Little, j. Ridley, & E. Ushioda, Learner autonomy in the foreign language classroom: Teacher, learner, curriculum and assessment (pp. 90-102). Authentik Language Learning Resources Ltd.
Uztosun, M. S. (2013 ). The role of student negotiation in improving the speaking ability of Turkish university EFL students: An action research study . The University of Exeter as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Education in TESOL.
vanLier, L. (2007). Action-based teaching, autonomy and identity. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 46–65.
Whitley, B. E., & Kite, M. E. (1996). Principles of Research in Behavioral Science. Routledge.
Wiersma, W. (1995). Research methods in education An introduction. Allyn & Bacon.
| ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 621 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 603 |
||