Negotiated syllabus: An Ethnographic Study in Iran
Introduction
One method to consider the learners needs and wants is running the class applying a negotiated syllabus. This type of syllabus is popular in a large number of countries and it is proved to have positive effects on the learners’ autonomy. However, it is not as popular in Iran. This study will illustrate how cultural background might have effect on the learners’ attitude toward negotiated syllabus. Negotiated syllabus, as a product of the interaction between the teacher and the learners to make decision about the syllabus of the course, is being implemented in a large number of classes. Applying negotiated syllabus, has some difficulties for the teacher and the students. This study attempts to investigate the potential difficulties that might be experienced as a result of implementing negotiated syllabus in English classes in Iran. A class consisting of around 10 upper-intermediate students will be run using negotiated syllabus. The students will be asked to write feedback every session and take part in the interview conducted at the end of the term. Moreover, the teacher will be supposed to write a research journal. In order to reveal some difficulties that the teacher or students may face while following the negotiated syllabus. In addition, it elucidates how these obstacles have roots in the students’ cultural background.
Critical thinking
As Cam Le (2005) states critical thinking is “the ability to distinguish between facts and opinions, judgments and inferences, and objective and subjective impressions”. From another perspective, learners need to develop the ability to question thoughts and beliefs to see whether they are true or not. In this sense students are allowed and expected to assess classroom procedures as well as materials. That is why Cam Le believes “it is important for both teachers and students to change the teacher-centered style of instruction”. And as a result, produce more enthusiastic language learners.
How to promote critical thinking in students
There are several techniques that can be used to produce learners as active thinkers and not just passive participants.
The questions that teachers ask learners have an important role in shaping learners’ thinking systems. Tsui(2001) believes that students produce lengthier and more original responses when answering referential or genuine questions compared to pseudo or display questions that are used for checking students’ ability to remember what they have learned. So it is recommended to make use of referential questions frequently. As Cam Le says one other way to do this is by asking wh- questions rather than yes or no questions.
Richards and Rodgers (2001) believe that “language learning is also believed to be motivating when students are focusing on something other than language, such as ideas, issues, and opinions.” They continue “If content with a high level of interest is chosen, learners may acquire the language more willingly.” Some content areas are interesting to many people, for example, geography and psychology. So, it is recommended to take content and topic into consideration.
We can extend and enrich learner centeredness by seeing students as the source of many texts that we can use in classes. In many teaching situations, the circumstances surrounding our teaching can motivate us to coproduce texts with students and to use these materials in the classroom. (Hsiao-Yi Chou, Sok-Han Lau, Huei-Chia Yang, and Tim Murphey, 2007)
Advantages of using materials produced by students
There are many advantages in using materials produced or brought to the class by students. Hsiao-Yi Chou et al. Talk about some advantages:
First, teachers become aware of students’ needs and interests. For example in their research Hsiao-Yi Chou et al. Got valuable information about the students.
Second, student-produced texts and materials can increase students’ motivation in class. “Most people are more interested in themselves than in others. And students find it easy to write about themselves, because they know the information, so they can focus on using the target language.”
Third, when students produce their own reading material, they start to take control of their own learning. And become more responsible. Also, they learn how to use English language to talk about their own identity and present themselves in social situations.
Fourth, Working on materials produced by students increases the interaction between teachers and students and the interaction between the learners, because students are eager to learn about their classmates. So, they become more familiar with each other and this leads to interaction inside the classroom as well as outside the classroom.
Fifth, this way of using students’ work reduces the time a teacher needs to spend on finding and creating materials. Also, it may be even more desirable than commercial materials.
Learner Autonomy
It can be defined as learners’ ability to take charge of their own learning. Until 1998 this issue was worked on only theoretically, and it was “less common to read reports of classroom-based courses which integrate principles of learner autonomy in their design”. (Cotterall, 2000) But after that, some researchers practiced it in the classroom. And learner autonomy became an essential goal of learning.
If we define autonomy in educational terms as involving students' capacity to use their learning independently of teachers, then autonomy would appear to be an incontrovertible goal for learners everywhere, since it is obvious that no students, anywhere, will have their teachers to accompany them throughout life. (Littlewood, 1999 as cited in Cotterall, 2000)
Paulo Freire, known as the most celebrated critical educator, “tried to develop students’ ability to think critically about their situation and allow them to recognize connections, between their individual problems and experiences and the social context in which they are embedded” (Sadeghi, 2012). As she states:
Freire” believed voice, social transformation and agency should be major goals of education. He argued against traditional methods where educators perpetuate the relations of power and domination and authority in the classroom, while the learners remain passive recipients of knowledge. Materials alienate learners from learning and facilitate a process of cultural invasion, because the learner is uncritically exposed to ideas imposed from above, from the dominant culture. (Sadeghi, 2012)
She continues with some of the key concepts:
Key concepts
Banking vs. Problem-Posing Education
Freire tried to challenge the separatist, "Banking Model of Education". In this model, the literacy is “taught as a set of cognitive skills or a decontextualized body of knowledge divorced from learners[‘] lives, with the consequence that learners cannot be reflective or bring their own experiences to the learning process” (Sadeghi, 2012). It inhibits creative power and consciousness.
Characteristics of banking education proposed by freire:
• the teacher teaches and the students are taught
• the teacher knows everything and the students know nothing
• the teacher thinks and the students are thought about
• the teacher talks and the students listen-meekly
• the teacher disciplines and the students are disciplined
• the teacher chooses and enforces his choice, and the students comply
• the teacher acts and the students have the illusion of acting through the action of the teacher
• the teacher chooses the program content, and the students (who are not consulted) adapt to it
• the teacher confuses the authority of knowledge with his own professional authority, which he sets in opposition to the freedom of the students
• the teacher is the Subject of the learning process, while the pupils are objects (Sadeghi, 2012)
Instead of this banking system, he suggests a model of problem posing. This model rejects the Banking Model or “education as the process of transferring information”, and embraces a view of education as consisting of acts of cognition that take place through dialogue. Students and teachers become critical co-investigators in dialogue with each other.
"No one teaches another, nor is anyone self-taught. Men teach each other, mediated by the world, by the cognizable objects which in banking education are 'owned' by the teacher". (Freire, 1998, as cited in Sadeghi) “It makes literacy relevant and engaging by focusing on problematic issues and examining common-sense knowledge through critical manner and constant unveiling of reality. Knowledge must be shared through authentic dialogue with an emphasis on conscious-raising and anti-authoritarian teaching.” (Sadeghi, 2012)
Origins of negotiated syllabus
According to Clarke (1991), negotiated syllabus has its roots in confluence of four important streams of applied linguistics and educational thinking:
1. Humanistic methodologies for ESL environment were being experimented largely in North America.
(e.g. Curran 1972; Stevick 1976)
2. Needs analysis was emphasized for a Notional or Communicative syllabus by the British EFL
(For example, Richterich 1972; Richterich and Chancerel 1977, 1980;
Munby 1978)
3. Learners autonomy and individualization was focused on in researches (e.g. Altman 1972; Disick 1975, and the CRAPEL publications)
4. Detailed investigations were carried out on thenature of learner strategies in the language learning process (e.g. Naiman, Frohlich, Stern, and Todesco 1978; Candlin and Murphy 1987;
Wenden and Rubin 1987)
One of the common features among the four roots of negotiated syllabus is that the learner is central to the language-learning process, instead of the teacher. As a result, the learner's affective, cognitive, and linguistic needs are considered as the building blocks of the syllabus. The second common feature is that all of them are derived from a holistic approach; and the third one is that they are all concerned with the process of language learning. In all of them the conscious or subconscious strategies that a learner uses,and the perception of the objectives that the learner has are focused on.
Definition of negotiated syllabus
What makes negotiated syllabus different from the other types of syllabi is that it allows the learners to participate in all the steps needed for a syllabus to be designed, from selection of content, mode of working and route of working to assessment. The teacher and learner work together to design the curriculum. Learners’ needs are prioritized and as a result, the syllabus can be changed according to learners’ changing needs or circumstances even while the course is running. According to Breen (1987), the negotiated syllabus is not externally imposed or ‘propositional’. Moreover, Candlin (1984) argues that negotiated syllabus is not ‘centralized, management-oriented and predictive’. Since this kind of syllabus is generated by the learners, it can be considered as a process based rather than ‘objectives-based’ or ‘content-based’. It is means-driven not ends-driven because the ends in such a syllabus cannot be predicted. Negotiated syllabus starts being created when the teacher and learners meet in a specific environment. Therefore, design is not external or prior to it and designing the syllabus becomes a part of the learning process which is flexible and dynamic.
In any communicative classroom, no matter the method being used in the class, the learners influence the syllabus to some extent. Breen writes:
“We are reminded that a syllabus can only have, at best, an indirect influence upon language learning. It is mediated by teaching and the encircling classroom context within which instruction is only one element. And it is further mediated by learners' participation in classroom work and by their own interpretation of the appropriate objectives and content for language learning. (Breen 1987: 159)”
Breen discusses the ineffectually of an external syllabus:
“On the basis of recent refinements in our view of learner contributions, it appears that the variables which intervene between the planning of a syllabus and the actual learning which the plan is intended to serve are such that the nature of the original plan might be rendered virtually irrelevant,”
Breen (1987) believes that negotiated syllabus “is something of a deviant in relation to the conventions of syllabus design” (p. 166); “It is obviously unconventional” (p. 168), and “might be perceived as a fairly radical departure from the norms of syllabus design”.
Importance of negotiated syllabus
The use of a negotiated syllabus becomes significant when the learners can learn from their peers’ skills and experiences. (Norris & Spencer, 2000)
There are situations where a negotiated syllabus is almost unavoidable. Breen and Littlejohn (2000) made a list of these situations. They stated that a negotiated syllabus is needed where:
1. Teacher and students have different background.
2. Time is short and the most useful choices must be made.
3. There is a very diverse group of students and there is a need to find common ground.
4. Initial needs analysis is not possible.
5. There is no course book.
6. The students’ past experiences must be part of the course.
7. The course is open-ended and exploratory.
Versions of negotiated syllabus
Negotiated syllabus is divided to two types: weak version and strong version.
According to Clarke (1989), a negotiated syllabus is of a weak version when some parts of it are negotiated and the other parts are under the control of the curriculum designer or the teacher. He stated that a specified time of the class can be dedicated to the negotiated activities. Decisions about class participation, procedure, learning goals, and evaluation can be made through negotiation. Moreover, the learners can negotiate with the teacher in one or more skills. They can discuss the type of reading activities they want to do. Likewise, one or more parts of the inner circle of the curriculum design can be negotiated. For instance the teacher can decide about the language focus, assessment, and presentation while negotiating the content.
On the other hand, the strong version suggests that every step taken in the class should be negotiated, from selecting the material to assessment.
Advantages of negotiated syllabus
Using a Learner-centred Syllabus encourages and empowers students to take an active role in the learning process. ( Contin Educ Nurs, 2012)
The learners can benefit from learning how to design what they are going to learn
The learners’ needs and wants, both cognitive and affective, are considered as much as possible.
Motivation is boosted.
The learners have a positive feeling toward the course since they can express their opinions considering what and how to learn.
It is a suitable syllabus for ESP where the class is homogenous.
According to Holme and Chalauisaeng (2006)’s narrative of students in an EAP reading course in Thai university, the learners started to think that learning is their own responsibility which helped them become
Disadvantages and difficulties of negotiated syllabus
Disadvantages of negotiated syllabus can be focused on considering the teacher, the learners or the material.
For the teacher:
“The major weakness of the process model of curriculum design will by now have become apparent. It rests upon the quality of the teacher” (Stenhouse, 1975).
It is not easy for a novice teacher to conduct a class using a negotiated syllabus.
Some teachers think this kind of syllabus results in anarchy.
The teacher might be underestimated.
Time management becomes difficult because negotiation takes time.
For the learners:
Negotiated syllabus (even the strong version) is suitable for homogenous classes like ESP classes where learners’ goals are similar.
Cultural expectations of the students to see the teacher as the controller of class might not be met.
The learners may have different strategic tendencies which can result in different decisions.
According to Littlejohn, the learners feel unsecure when they face a new situation which seems strange to them.
Littlejohn (1983) stated that the learners should be prepared to be able to handle the ongoing process of negotiation.
The learners hardly feel the progress without course book.
The learners might have different opinions which make it hard to reach an agreement.
Holme and Chalauisaeng (2006) declared that some students from Thai university said that a disadvantage of a negotiated class is that the class “may focus too strongly on understanding how they had to learn to the detriment of learning itself.”
For materials:
While applying a negotiated syllabus, the materials should be created spontaneously whenever a decision is made.
The materials are specified for one group and they might not be used for another one.
Statement of the problem
Negotiated syllabus has been widely welcomed in some countries while it does not seem to attract the learners’ interest in Iran. This study is conducted to reveal some of the underlying reasons for this attitude.
Research questions
• What are the potential difficulties involved in the implementation of a Negotiated syllabus?
• Why is negotiated syllabus not welcomed by the students?
Rationale of the study
Since an increasing emphasis is being put on the learners, and their needs and wants, the role of a syllabus which can boost learners’ autonomy is strengthened. A negotiated syllabus is the one which can help the learners make decisions in every step they take in the path of language learning, though it is not accepted in some countries like Iran. This study will shed light on the reasons behind rejection of this kind of syllabus in English classes in Iran.
Key terms
Negotiated syllabus
It involves teachers and learners decide together what to work on during the term, based on students’ needs and interests under the supervision of teacher.
Learner autonomy
It is the ability based on which learners set goals and take charge of their learning.
Learners’ background
It refers to learners’ previous experiences. These experiences form students’ expectations of a normal class.
Students’ feedback
Giving feedback refers to monitoring and evaluating one’s own performance, the performance of the teacher, and the effectiveness of the course.
Literature review
Methodology
Design
An ethnographic study is designed to study the cultural aspects of the learners’ acceptance or rejection of the negotiated syllabus. The study will be a longitudinal one which will last for 20 sessions; each session will be 90 minutes.
Participants
The participants will be upper-intermediate students, all female, whose age range from 16 to 21. They are studying English in one of the classes of an institute in west of Tehran. So, convenience sampling is adopted in this study.
Instrumentation
One interview from the students will be conducted. The students will be assigned to write their feedback every session. The teacher will record a research journal.
Procedure
Data collection procedure will include conducting individual interviews. Each interview will be around 20 minutes. The interviews will be transcribed. After that, the collected data will be analyzed.
Data collection process
The students will be asked to write their feedbacks every session and one interview will be carried out at the end of the term. Moreover, the teacher will be supposed to write a research journal.
Timeline
The classes will start in January, and will last till the end of March 2015. Data collection will take around 2 months.