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:

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perceptions, interaction patterns and strategies towards IranianStudents‘willingnessto communicate or reticence (Unpublished Master’s thesis) university Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia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