Negotiating tasks in listening and speaking classes at DELL of USSH, HCMC

This study aims at investigating whether task negotiation can be a viable teaching approach in listening and speaking classes at the Department of English Linguistics and Literature, the

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY - HO CHI MINH CITY

UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES

W X

NEGOTIATING TASKS

IN LISTENING AND SPEAKING CLASSES

AT DELL OF USSH, HCM CITY

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment

of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts (TESOL)

Submitted by NGUYỄN NHÃ TRÂN

Supervisor

NGUYỄN THỊ KIỀU THU, Ph.D

Ho Chi Minh City, January 2010

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP

I certify that this thesis, entitled “Negotiating tasks in listening and speaking classes

at DELL of USSH, HCM City” is my own work

This thesis has not been submitted for the award of any degree or diploma in any other institution

Ho Chi Minh City, January 27, 2010

Nguyen Nha Tran

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my thesis supervisor, Dr Nguyen Thi Kieu Thu, for her insightful comments and generous support during the preparation and completion of the thesis Without her helpful guidance and kind patience, I could not have finished this thesis

I especially wish to send my thanks to Mr Truong Hon Huy and Ms Vo Thi Nu Anh for their invaluable assistance with the use of SPSS in the data analysis of the study; and Ms Nguyen Van Ha for her willingness to share her resources and experience

I am deeply grateful to all my teachers in the course for their instruction and dedication

This research project would not have been possible without the cooperation of the students in the two classes and I sincerely thank each one of them My heartfelt appreciation is also expressed to my colleagues for their support and encouragement during the implementation of the thesis and the library staff at the English Resources Centre for their wonderful help

My special thanks also go to my friends who have supported me by way of expressions of trust, concern, and encouragement along the way I particularly thank

Mr Vo Duy Minh, whose insightful remarks and questions during our discussions are invaluable for the thesis

Finally, and most importantly, I am greatly indebted to my family for their support and patience throughout the course

To this end, the study was conducted in two first-year classes assigned to the researcher by the Department The first class which agreed to try the new mode of teaching and learning became the experimental group and the other the control group Both the experimental group (37 students) and the control group (40 students) took the listening and speaking tests before and after the experimental period Data were also collected through a course-evaluation questionnaire delivered to both groups, individual interviews with 10 experimental students and some documents collated during the process of teaching the experimental group

The data analysis shows that despite the finding that there was no significant difference in student performance as a result of the different ways of teaching adopted in the two groups, task negotiation achieved a wider range of learning outcomes, including enhanced motivation, increased involvement, fostered autonomous learning capacity, high quality of students’ work, a sense of progress and a good relationship of understanding and support among the participants Results also reveal the experimental group’s satisfaction with and acceptance of the teaching content and form compared with the control group’s mixed reaction Considering the limitations of time, evidence obtained indicates that negotiation worked well in the listening and speaking class

The thesis therefore suggests applying classroom negotiation to the teaching and learning

of listening and speaking Some recommendations are made regarding the introduction of negotiation into the classroom, including the framework for negotiated decision-making, learner-needs analysis, learner training, small group structure and teacher qualities and expertise

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Statement of authorship i

Acknowledgements ii

Abstract iii

Table of contents iv

List of tables vii

List of figures ix

Abbreviations x

INTRODUCTION 1

0.1 RATIONALE OF THE RESEARCH 1

0.2 AIM OF THE STUDY 4

0.3 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY 4

0.4 ORGANISATION OF THE REMAINDER OF THE STUDY 5

CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY 6

1.1 THE NEW LANGUAGE SKILLS PROGRAMME AT DELL, USSH 6

1.2 THE LISTENING - SPEAKING 4 MODULE 9

1.3 SUMMARY 11

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 12

2.1 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND TO THE RESEARCH 12

2.1.1 Negotiation 12

2.1.1.1 A brief historical overview of the emergence of the concept of negotiation in language teaching and learning 12

2.1.1.2 Definitions of the term ‘negotiation’ 15

2.1.1.3 Arguments for procedural negotiation 16

2.1.1.4 Guidelines 22

2.1.1.5 Contextual factors 26

2.1.1.6 Roles of learners and teachers 29

2.1.2.1 Task-based learning 31

2.1.2.2 Definition of a ‘task’ 32

2.1.2.3 Task components 33

2.1.2.4 Task types 36

2.1.2.5 Tasks and syllabus negotiation 38

2.1.3 Listening and speaking 38

2.1.3.1 Listening 38

2.1.3.2 Speaking 40

2.2 PREVIOUS RESEARCH ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PROCEDURAL NEGOTIATION IN LANGUAGE CLASSROOMS IN VIETNAM 42

2.3 SUMMARY 43

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 44

3.1 RESEARCH QUESTIONS 44

3.2 RESEARCH DESIGN 45

3.2.1 Subjects 46

3.2.2 Treatment 52

3.2.3 Instruments 53

3.2.3.1 Tests 53

3.2.3.2 Questionnaires 54

3.2.3.3 Interviews 56

3.2.3.4 Course-related documents 56

3.2.4 Data collection procedures 57

3.2.5 Data analysis procedures 58

3.3 SUMMARY 59

CHAPTER 4 DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS 60

4.1 DATA ANALYSIS 60

4.1.1 Post-test scores 60

4.1.1.1 Post-test listening scores 60

4.1.1.2 Post-test speaking scores 62

4.1.2 Course-evaluation questionnaire 64

4.1.2.1 Responses to the closed questions 64

4.1.2.2 Responses to the open questions 74

4.1.3 Interviews 87

4.1.4 Course-related documents 95

4.2 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS 97

4.3 SUMMARY 99

CHAPTER 5 IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 100

5.1 IMPLICATIONS 100

5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS 102

5.2.1 A framework for negotiated decision-making 102

5.2.2 Learner-needs analysis 104

5.2.3 Learner training 106

5.2.4 Small groups 108

5.2.5 Teacher qualities and expertise 109

CONCLUSION 113

BIBLIOGRAPHY 116

APPENDIX 1 Pre-questionnaire (in Vietnamese) 123

APPENDIX 2 Pre-questionnaire (English version) 124

APPENDIX 3 Post-questionnaire (in Vietnamese) 125

APPENDIX 4 Post-questionnaire (English version) 128

APPENDIX 5 The questions for the interviews with the ten experimental students (in Vietnamese) 131

APPENDIX 6 The questions for the interviews with the ten experimental students (English version) 132

APPENDIX 7 Course-related documents 133

APPENDIX 8 Language Study 4 Syllabus (in Vietnamese) 142

APPENDIX 9 Brief account of the negotiation in the experimental group 147

APPENDIX 10 The responses to the open questions in the post-questionnaire 150

LIST OF TABLES

Chapter 2

Table 2.1 A framework for describing tasks 34

Chapter 3 Table 3.1 Year of birth 47

Table 3.2 Gender distribution 47

Table 3.3 Places where students attended high school 48

Table 3.4 Students’ age when they started learning English 48

Table 3.5 Information regarding whether students had attended English courses at other places 48

Table 3.6 Students’ perception of their oral proficiency 49

Table 3.7 Students’ opinions of the importance of oral communication skills 49

Table 3.8 How much students liked studying listening and speaking 50

Table 3.9 Descriptive statistics for the pre-test listening scores 50

Table 3.10 Descriptive statistics for the pre-test speaking scores 51

Chapter 4 Table 4.1 Descriptive statistics for the post-test listening scores 61

Table 4.2 The output produced by the t-test analysis of the post-test listening scores 61

Table 4.3 Descriptive statistics for the post-test speaking scores 63

Table 4.4 The output produced by the t-test analysis of the post-test speaking scores 63

Table 4.5 Students’ opinions of the interestingness of the tasks 65

Table 4.6 Students’ opinions of the usefulness of the tasks 65

Table 4.7 Students’ opinions of the difficulty level of the tasks 66

Table 4.8 Students’ involvement in the tasks 66

Table 4.9 Students’ overall evaluation of the tasks 67

Table 4.10 Student-student interaction 67

Table 4.11 Teacher-student interaction 68

Table 4.12 Students’ contribution to the classes 68

Table 4.13 Students’ assessment of their increased self-confidence 71

Table 4.14 Students’ assessment of their progress in independence in listening and speaking learning 72

Table 4.15 Students’ assessment of their increased interest in studying listening and speaking 72

Table 4.16 Students’ assessment of the number of tasks 73

Table 4.17 Students’ assessment of the effectiveness of the module in improving their communicative competence 73

Table 4.18 Students’ satisfaction with the way of teaching and learning 74

Table 4.19 What students liked about the tasks 75

Table 4.20 What students liked about the way of teaching and learning 79

Table 4.21 What students liked about the teacher 81

LIST OF FIGURES

Chapter 2

Figure 2.1 Relationship between three kinds of negotiation 20 Figure 2.2 A process syllabus 24 Figure 2.3 A framework for analysing communicative tasks 35

Chapter 4

Figure 4.1 Experimental students’ perceptions of what they learned 69 Figure 4.2 Control students’ perceptions of what they learned 69

ABBREVIATIONS

CLT : Communicative Language Teaching

CUP : Cambridge University Press

DELL : The Department of English Linguistics and Literature L2 : Second language

OUP : Oxford University Press

SLA : Second language acquisition

TBL : Task-based learning

USSH : The University of Social Sciences and Humanities

This study aims at investigating whether task negotiation can be a viable teaching approach in listening and speaking classes at the Department of English Linguistics and Literature, the University of Social Sciences and Humanities – Vietnam National University, Ho Chi Minh City This introduction presents the rationale, the aim and the significance of the study and an overview of the rest of the thesis

0.1 RATIONALE OF THE RESEARCH

Since the 1960s, learner-centredness has become a topic of widespread discussion

in the language teaching literature A lot of effort has gone into finding means of making language teaching more responsive to learners’ needs, characteristics and expectations, encouraging their active involvement in their own learning and educating them to become independent and ongoing learners This preoccupation of learner-centredness is clearly evident in the emergence of a number of trends in the

professional literature such as humanistic language teaching, communicative

language teaching, learning strategy research, individualisation, learner autonomy

and syllabus negotiation (Tudor, 1996) The last notion represents one of the most

significant innovations in recent years which highlight the importance of learner independence, collaborative learning and shared decision-making (Breen & Littlejohn, 2000) In negotiative approaches, teacher and learners discuss with each other to decide what to learn and how to learn it Proponents of this development believe that the syllabus which emerges from the negotiating process will be more flexible and relevant to learners’ needs and thus more motivating and will allow learners to play a more informed and self-directive role in their learning (Bloor & Bloor, 1988; Nunan, 1988b; Boomer et al., 1992; Nunan, 1992a, 1999; Tudor, 1996; Breen & Littlejohn, 2000) The fact that there is a growing number of teachers’ accounts of successful negotiated work in a wide range of educational settings (in Western and Eastern cultures, in state and private institutions, in small and large classes, with students of different age ranges and levels) demonstrates the

feasibility of negotiation in diverse contexts (Boomer et al., 1992; Breen & Littlejohn, 2000; Huang, 2006) This indicates the potential of this approach in the realm of language teaching and learning

In Vietnam, learner-centredness has become one of the buzzwords in the language teaching circle over recent years Learner roles and ways to tailor the teaching to learners’ needs and encourage them to become active participants and self-directive learners have been the focus of many workshops and studies There have, however, been few formal discussions and research projects on negotiation as a learner-centred approach to language teaching although interest in this development is high

in the professional literature It was this fact that motivated the present researcher in the first place to carry out the study in order to investigate how negotiation works in the Vietnamese context

Moreover, since the school year 2005-2006, the University of Social Sciences and Humanities (henceforth USSH) – Ho Chi Minh City has implemented the credit system training, which has called for a change in teaching methods in order to meet students’ needs and actively involve them in the teaching and learning process In response to this demand, the Department of English Linguistics and Literature (henceforth DELL) has re-designed the BA programme in general and the language skills syllabuses in particular This behoves teachers at DELL to make their teaching more learner-centred and increase students’ independence and active engagement in their learning As a teacher in the Language Skills Section of DELL, the researcher found it necessary to conduct a study to test the feasibility of negotiation as a learner-centred approach in language teaching at DELL, USSH Another inspiration of the study is the concern over Vietnamese learners’ verbal communicative competence and the growing interest in communicative language teaching in Vietnam in recent years For a long period of time, the language teaching in Vietnam has been dominated by grammar – translation methods, which results in the often heard complaint that Vietnamese learners are good at grammar, reading and writing but cannot conduct a short conversation With the development

of the economy, Vietnam has become a popular destination for foreign tourists and investors; mastering spoken English has, therefore, become a must for learners of English This demand leads to the shift of focus towards the aural/oral skills and communicative approaches to language teaching This drove the researcher to undertake research on syllabus negotiation, a development which emerged from the communicative language teaching movement and has been vigorously upheld by a growing number of writers According to Breen (2001) “collaborative decision-making about different aspects of the teaching – learning process in the classroom […] involves learners in authentic opportunities to use and develop their knowledge and capabilities” (p 154) While engaging them in responsible decisions about their work, syllabus negotiation generates meaningful interaction among the participants

in the classroom and thus contributes to learners’ language development

Above are the main factors that led to the implementation of the study on syllabus negotiation in listening and speaking classes The research just focuses on the task level of the syllabus, however One obvious reason is the existence of a pre-determined syllabus in the context of the study The other is the increasing recognition of the importance of tasks in syllabus design ever since the emergence

of task-based learning Research on second language acquisition area during the 1980s suggested that learners’ interaction and, through it, negotiation for meaning during task performance could facilitate their acquisition of linguistic knowledge and its social use It is, therefore, proposed that task should be the key unit in the syllabus and teachers should provide appropriate tasks that can generate rich and meaningful interaction which will be facilitative of language acquisition In addition, some writers have highlighted a connection between learner-centredness and learning tasks in the classroom (Wright, 1987; Nunan, 1989) Nunan (1989), for example, suggests learner role and teacher role as two components of a task and points out the need to involve learners in task design and selection Given the significant implications for language acquisition and learner-centredness of tasks in classrooms, the researcher found it justified in undertaking negotiation between teacher and learners at the level of tasks

To sum up, presented in this section of the chapter are the inspirations for the study

on task negotiation in listening and speaking classes at DELL, USSH Task negotiation refers to the discussion between all members of the classroom regarding what tasks to learn and how to do them The research aims at examining first whether this mode of teaching and learning can be applied in the Vietnamese context in general and in DELL context in particular and second whether it can help better address students’ needs, generate genuine motivation, develop responsible learning and increase learning effectiveness

0.2 AIM OF THE STUDY

The objectives of the study are: (1) to investigate the feasibility of classroom negotiation in Vietnam in general and at DELL, USSH in particular; (2) to seek empirical evidence of the effects of task negotiation on the teaching and learning of listening - speaking at DELL; (3) to examine students’ attitudes towards the adoption of negotiation as an approach to the teaching and learning of listening - speaking; and (4) to offer recommendations concerning the use of negotiation in listening - speaking classes

To this end, an experimental method was employed The subjects of the study were students in two Listening – Speaking 4 classes at DELL of USSH Data were collected from four sources, i.e test scores, questionnaires, interviews and course-related documents

0.3 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

The fact that there has been little research concerning the practicality of negotiation

in language teaching in Vietnam in general and at DELL of USSH in particular in spite of the growing interest in this teaching mode in the professional literature demonstrates the importance of this study Moreover, the research is of even greater significance in light of the shift of focus towards learner-centred and communicative approaches that help enhance learners’ communicative competence

and encourage them to assume a more informed and active role in their own learning It is the researcher’s hope that the study can reveal some insight into negotiation as an approach to language teaching and offer some recommendations concerning how negotiation can be adopted in the Vietnamese context

0.4 ORGANISATION OF THE REMAINDER OF THE STUDY

Apart from the present introductory chapter, which states the rationale, aim and significance of the study, and the conclusion at the end, the thesis consists of five main chapters:

Chapter 1 provides the background to the study with a description of the new language skills programme and, particularly, the Listening - Speaking 4 module at DELL of USSH

Chapter 2 is the literature review, presenting an overview of the theoretical background and the related research in the Vietnamese context

Chapter 3 focuses upon the methodology of the study with a presentation of the research questions and the research design, including the participants, treatment, instruments, and data collection and analysis procedures

Chapter 4 deals with a detailed analysis of the data collected and a discussion of the research findings

Chapter 5 sets out the implications of the research results and then offers some tentative recommendations regarding the application of negotiation in listening and speaking classes at DELL

CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

For an understanding of the study context, this chapter looks in detail at (1) the new language skills programme and (2) the Listening - Speaking 4 module at DELL, USSH

1.1 THE NEW LANGUAGE SKILLS PROGRAMME AT DELL, USSH

Since the school year 2007-2008, the teaching of language skills at DELL has undergone a great change with an emphasis upon the application of the integrated skills approach Previously, the four sets of skills were taught separately; students spent three periods studying, for example, listening, and listening only, and then the next three periods on speaking, and merely speaking This teaching mode is, however, not congruent with real-world situations which require the simultaneous use of different skills For instance, a student who attends a workshop will listen to the presenter and read the power point slides at the same time; (s)he may also take notes and then talk with the presenter and fellow students For this reason, it is essential that language skills be taught in an integrated fashion (Harmer, 1991; Celce-Murcia & Olshtain, 2000; Thornbury, 2005) In the context of the shift to the credit system training, which reflects the emphasis on learner-centredness, DELL has re-designed all the language skills courses in an attempt to meet students’ real-life communicative needs Listening is now taught in conjunction with Speaking; Reading, Writing and Grammar are no longer separated In one class meeting, students practise listening and speaking or reading, writing and grammar in 5 periods (each period lasts 50 minutes in the credit-based system compared to 45 minutes in the year-based system) At the time that the study was carried out, although students learnt Listening - Speaking and Reading - Writing - Grammar in two separate classes, they earned only one mark at the end for the subject called Language Study The Listening - Speaking module accounted for 40% of the total mark and the Reading - Writing - Grammar module made up 60% This meant that

if a student failed the Language Study course, (s)he had to repeat both modules

Students therefore had to try their best to improve all of their skills and their grammar and, inevitably, vocabulary and pronunciation at the same time

In parallel with the reconstruction of the language skills courses, all the textbooks

have been replaced by the new ones: the Interactions Mosaic series (4th edition) published by McGraw-Hill/Contemporary The specific textbooks used in the four language study courses, which students at the time of the study had to complete in the first year, are as follows:

- Language Study 1: Interactions 2 (Low Intermediate – Intermediate) (4 th

edition) (Units 1 – 9)

- Language Study 2: Interactions 2 (Low Intermediate – Intermediate) (4 th

edition) (Units 10 – 12) and Mosaic 1 (Intermediate – High Intermediate) (4 th edition) (Units 1 – 6)

- Language Study 3: Mosaic 1 (Intermediate – High Intermediate) (4 th edition)

(Units 7 – 12) and Mosaic 2 (High Intermediate – Low Advanced) (4 th edition)

skill-around a theme, which simulates real-world communication tasks in which the same experience or topic requires the use of different skills

The new language skills program requires much effort from students First of all, as has been mentioned, students have to improve all the skills in order to pass language study courses Second, they need to be active, responsible and independent This is manifest in the students’ duties clearly stated in the syllabuses:

- read the materials and do the exercises before each class

- make necessary preparations as required by the teacher

- actively participate in the lessons

- do the exercises – inside as well as outside the classroom – assigned by the teacher

- consult materials relevant to the lessons

- take the initiative in studying issues of interest

- attend at least 80% of the time in class A reasonable excuse is needed in case

of absence

(See Appendix 8 for the Language Study 4 Syllabus)

The aim of fostering students’ independence is also reflected in the recommendation of some reference books and, particularly, many useful websites for improving their English and learning how to learn Further, out of nine chapters required for each course, there is always one chapter for self-study at home under the teacher’s guidance

In short, the development of the new language study syllabuses is a great advance in the attempt to make teaching more learner-centred The integrated skills approach is adopted in the hope of enhancing students’ communicative skills Further, more effort is put into increasing students’ responsibility and fostering their autonomy, which is one of the main goals of the credit system training

1.2 THE LISTENING - SPEAKING 4 MODULE

The experiment was implemented in the Language Study 4 – Listening - Speaking class The detailed course syllabus, designed by DELL, is provided in Appendix 8

The objectives of the whole Language Study 4 course in general and the Listening - Speaking 4 module in particular are developing students’ communicative competence, equipping students with the subskills necessary for real-life situations, and improving students’ grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation

The textbook used in the Listening - Speaking 4 module is Mosaic 2

Listening/Speaking 4 th edition (by Jami Hanreddy and Elizabeth Whalley, 2004, The

McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., New York) It is designed for the High Intermediate and Low Advanced levels As the last book in the series, it aims at sharpening the skills the other books help students build up in the first three Language Study courses Specifically, it provides students with:

- academic English, note-taking strategies and learning strategies: by listening to lectures and radio broadcasts, students get used to academic English and at the same time practise necessary note-taking strategies such as using illustrations, using target expressions to help understand lectures, using cohesive devices as markers and so on Additionally, they are trained to use a variety of learning strategies such as understanding and using figurative language, listening for comparisons and contrasts, listening for causes and effects, distinguishing between fact and opinion, predicting exam questions and thinking critically

- listening sub-skills and test-taking strategies: students listen to short conversations and practise essential sub-skills e.g listening for gist and listening for details At the same time, students can learn some necessary test-taking strategies for standardized tests

- natural conversational language, a variety of language functions and communication tasks: in listening to short conversations, students are exposed

to natural conversational language and taught to identify and understand a variety of language functions (e.g persuading and giving in, acquiescing and expressing reservations, and taking and keeping the floor) Moreover, students have the chance to practise speaking and, particularly, learn to use language functions in everyday contexts through a wide range of activities such as role-plays, interviews, presentations and small group discussions

- useful cultural information: The culture notes in some chapters help students learn more about the culture of the target language

It is clear enough that Mosaic 2 Listening/Speaking offers a lot of opportunities to

expose students to authentic language, develop their listening skills and improve their fluency and accuracy By providing a variety of listening and speaking activities, it allows teachers and students to make choices, consider alternatives and plan for specific needs

In addition to Mosaic 2 Listening/Speaking, some reference resources are suggested

to teachers and students, including Advanced listening comprehension – Developing

aural and note-taking skills (by Patricia Dunkel and Frank Pialorsi, 2000), New English File – Upper Intermediate (by Clive Oxenden et al., 2005, OUP), New Headway – Advanced (by John Soars and Liz Soars, 2003, OUP, Hong Kong)

Besides, a number of interesting and useful websites are recommended for reference (see Appendix 8) Teachers are also allowed to use materials of their own as long as they are congruent with the course requirements concerning topics, skills and task types

1.3 SUMMARY

This chapter has given a detailed depiction of the new language skills programme and the Listening - Speaking 4 module of DELL, USSH In the next chapter, the literature relevant to the study including the theoretical background and the related research which has been carried out in the Vietnamese context will be presented

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

Chapter 1 has provided the background to the study This chapter reviews the literature relevant, including (1) the theoretical background to the study and (2) an overview of previous research on the notion of classroom negotiation in the Vietnamese context

2.1 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND TO THE RESEARCH

2.1.1 Negotiation

2.1.1.1 A brief historical overview of the emergence of the concept of

negotiation in language teaching and learning

The concept of negotiation in learning has been shaped by a number of developments in different fields including education, psychology, second language acquisition, linguistics and, of course, language pedagogy The purpose of this section is to present an overview of the main trends of thought that have led to the profession’s interest in syllabus negotiation as an approach to language teaching The origins of the idea of negotiated decision-making can be said to lie in the Enlightenment, which was reflected in Bertrand Russell’s and John Dewey’s

‘humanist conception’ in the early twentieth century (Breen & Littlejohn, 2000) Realising the inegalitarian and dehumanising characteristics of the industrial revolution, Russell and Dewey highlighted the significant role of education in developing a genuinely democratic society In their liberal schooling agenda, they stressed the importance of “collaborative responsibility” and “choice” as opposed to

“competition” and “coercion” (Breen & Littlejohn, 2000, p 14) Their ‘humanist conception’ was further developed by educators both inside and outside the USAand significantly influenced innovations in several fields Following Dewey, many a humanist educator criticised transmission modes of education, calling for more democratic forms of teaching (Boomer et al., 1992; Breen & Littlejohn, 2000) One educational theorist whose work has had a direct impact on language teaching is

Paulo Freire in Brazil In his book “Pedagogy of the Oppressed”, Freire (1970)

attacked traditional ‘banking’ concepts of education in which learners are viewed as empty vessels and teachers are experts whose job is impart information that they consider relevant and necessary (in Brown, 2000) Learners should, as he proposed,

be given the opportunities “to negotiate learning outcomes, to cooperate with teachers and other [learners] in a process of discovery, to engage in critical thinking, and to relate everything they do in school to their reality outside the classroom” (Brown, 2000, p 90) The ideas of Freire and other humanist educators have contributed greatly to the profession’s current understanding of the educational process

In the field of psychology, the 1960s witnessed the emergence of the humanistic approach, which has had a significant impact upon language teaching Two much talked-about psychologists in the literature are Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers Their important contribution to pedagogy is the idea of “a ‘person-centred’ agenda for ‘self-actualisation’ through education” (Breen & Littlejohn, 2000, p.13) Education is, as they believed, a life-long process and the learner is a ‘whole person’ and thus their subjective needs and experience should be taken into consideration in the learning agenda According to Rogers, learners do have the inherent ability to reach their potential; hence, teachers should act as facilitators whose task is to create a nonthreatening environment for learning by establishing interpersonal relationships with learners (Rogers, 1951, 1983, in Brown, 2000) Rogers’s and Maslow’s humanistic psychology, together with the ideas of humanist educators as mentioned above, led to the development of the humanistic movement

in language teaching With the emphasis upon the process side of learning, the personal assumption of responsibility and the respect for learners’ subjective experience, the humanistic movement has contributed significantly to language teaching practice

During the period of 1970s-1980s, there was a substantial body of research in the second language acquisition (SLA) realm, which has had a profound influence on the development of language pedagogy The first work that should be noted is that

of Hatch (1978) (Breen & Littlejohn, 2000) Her research on how learners learn language forms via interaction has drawn SLA researchers’ attention to the important role of interaction in second language (L2) acquisition The second influential theoretical perspective at the time was proposed by Stephen Krashen In his Input Hypothesis, Krashen claimed that acquisition will occur if learners are exposed to language input which is just beyond their current level of competence Hatch’s assumption concerning conversation and Krashen’s contention regarding

‘comprehensible input’ were later combined and extended in Long’s Interaction Hypothesis According to Long, ‘modified interaction’ in which the more competent speaker alters the language form to make it more comprehensible can facilitate language acquisition (Long, 1981, in Breen & Littlejohn, 2000) Long’s work marked a shift in the view of language acquisition process from “the mere interaction between input data and the learners’ mind” to “overt negotiation for meaning within social relationships” and provided impetus for research on how to generate negotiated interaction in the language classroom (Breen & Littlejohn,

2000, p 16)

Another significant innovation in the late twentieth century that language pedagogy owes its development to is that in the field of linguistics During the 1970s, a number of linguists began to see and analyse language as a system for the expression of meaning The emphasis was placed upon language use rather than the formal aspects of language This social view of language is best reflected in the concept of ‘communication competence’, coined by Hymes in reaction to Chomsky’s notion of underlying linguistic competence This change in perspective led to a reorientation in language pedagogy: the primary goal is to help learners develop the ability to use language rather than the knowledge about the language Ever since Hymes’s concept of ‘communicative competence’, one of the language teaching community’s primary concerns has been how to make language teaching more communicative This has given rise to different innovations under the umbrella term ‘communicative language teaching’ (CLT) In the early days of CLT, the focus was on the goals and content of instruction, which was manifest in the

emergence of functional syllabuses organised around functions of language in common use or derived from needs analysis and their linguistic realisations From the 1980s onwards, however, there has been a move towards how language learning

is undertaken by learners with two new directions The first is task-based learning (TBL), which is founded in the findings of SLA research The second is ‘learner-centred’ curriculum, which evolved from educational perspectives on syllabus design and the teaching and learning process Proponents of the latter argued for the active involvement of learners in decision-making with respect to the what and how

of language learning through the process of negotiation between teacher and learners (Nunan, 1988b; Tudor, 1996; Breen & Littlejohn, 2000; Breen, 2001) This has led to the language teaching community’s current interest in the potential of syllabus negotiation in the language classroom

2.1.1.2 Definitions of the term ‘negotiation’

As can be noticed from the historical account of the formative influences of the idea

of negotiated decision-making, the term “negotiation” refers to different things in the language teaching world Breen and Littlejohn (2000) distinguish three types of

negotiation: personal negotiation, interactive negotiation and procedural

negotiation

Personal negotiation refers to the complex mental process that occurs when we

interpret what we read or hear or when we try to express what we mean in writing

or speaking (Breen & Littlejohn, 2000) An example of this kind of negotiation is that one poem can be interpreted differently by different people owing to their different previous knowledge and experience It can be understood differently even

by the same person the second time (s)he reads it This kind of negotiation is inevitable whenever we use language for interpreting or expressing meaning

Interactive negotiation or negotiation of meaning is “the interactional work done by

speakers and listeners to ensure that they have a common understanding of the ongoing meanings in a discourse” (Nunan, 1999, p 311) This notion, as presented

in the preceding section, had its origins in SLA research during the 1970s Studies have shown that during the interaction, the lack of comprehension on the listener’s part prompts him/her to ask for clarification, repetition or confirmation, resulting in the speaker’s adjustments of his/her language to make it more understandable It has, therefore, been argued that negotiation of meaning provides learners with comprehensible input and thus facilitates L2 acquisition

Procedural negotiation, which is often referred to as syllabus negotiation, is, as

Breen and Littlejohn (2000) define, “the discussion between all members of the classroom to decide how learning and teaching are to be organised” (p 1) As the purpose of the discussion is to reach agreement among the parties involved, the use

of ‘negotiation’ here is in a sense similar to that in industrial or international politics (Bloor & Bloor, 1988; Boomer et al., 1992; Breen & Littlejohn, 2000) However, since “there should be no conflict between the goals of the parties, the teacher’s aim being to achieve what is best for the students”, classroom negotiation is “not a bargaining process […] but a joint exploration of possibilities and targets, an exploration to which [the teacher and the students] bring different specialist knowledge” (Bloor & Bloor, 1988, p 63) It is this type of negotiation which evolved from the concern regarding how to make the teaching and learning process more communicative during the 1980s and which is also the focus of the present study

2.1.1.3 Arguments for procedural negotiation

Following are the main reasons for implementing procedural negotiation in language teaching and learning

a Negotiation can make the teaching responsive to learners’ needs

Given learners’ different experiences, expectations and preferences, any syllabus determined by the institution or the teacher prior to the encounter between the teacher and the learners proves inadequate (Nunan, 1988b; Breen & Littlejohn,

needs, the discrepancy between the demands of the classroom and the prescribed syllabus cannot be satisfactorily bridged The reason is the information collected is only objective or factual informationsuch as age, occupation, language proficiency and educational background Subjective information (e.g attitudes, preferred methodology and learning-style preferences), which is more useful for the selection

of content and methodology, can only be obtained once the teacher has met the students and a mutual relationship has been established between them Therefore, any pre-determined syllabus which is based on information gathered in the initial collection is “superficially learner-centred” (Nunan, 1988b, p 24) Negotiated syllabus is, meanwhile, more relevant to learners’ needs Through ongoing dialogue, teacher and learners gradually discover the latter’s affective needs, expectations and preferences (Nunan, 1988b; Tudor, 1996) The subjective information obtained then helps to shape and refine the objectives, content and even the methodology during the course of programme delivery, particularly in the initial stages (Nunan, 1988b) The modified syllabus is therefore more responsive and learner-centred

b Negotiation can increase learners’ motivation and involvement in learning

Negotiation helps generate learner interest and engagement in learning as it offers them the shared ownership of the course In participating in decision-making via negotiation and consultation with the teacher, learners play a more active role in the shaping of their learning program This gives them a sense of ownership, which in turn leads to increasing involvement in the course (Brandes & Ginnis, 1986; Bloor

& Bloor, 1988; Boomer et al., 1992) This engagement can be seen in learners’

investment and commitment Since “people tend to strive hardest for the things they wish to own, or to keep and enhance things they already own”, learners will be intrinsically motivated to contribute to the construction and modification of the study program (Cook, 1992, p 15) As Bloor & Bloor (1988) believe, “negotiation inevitably recurs as the course proceeds, and, if the students want changes, they are likely to give voice in their views This can motivate the students to continued involvement in the course” (p 15) And because the educational program is what

they have chosen, learning becomes more relevant, meaningful and intentional; learners will study harder and thus learn more and better

c Negotiation can foster learner autonomy

To begin with, the negotiating process helps raise learners’ awareness, a prerequisite for developing learner responsibility As most learners enter a course with a vague idea about what they hope to acquire, any course designed to increase learners’ responsibility must set out to help them have a clear understanding of their strengths and weaknesses and their expectations and preferences Negotiation provides the context to develop such a critical self-awareness (Bloor & Bloor, 1988; Nunan, 1988) Through the ongoing dialogue with the teacher, learners are encouraged to reflect upon their prior knowledge, learning experiences, affective needs and preferences Gradually, they come to understand and, more importantly, are able to articulate their needs and learning goals Moreover, the sharing of perspectives and the joint selection of learning content and form help learners become aware of the facilities available and the range of learning options as well as constraints in their learning context and hence able to understand the consequences

of choices they make (Bloor & Bloor, 1988; Nunan, 1988; Breen & Littlejohn, 2000) These insights enable learners to begin to assume more control over their learning

In addition, negotiation facilitates a reformulation of the traditional roles in the classroom Normally, it is the institution and the teacher who make decisions relative to learning content and form and learners are supposed to be passive

“consumers” of language courses In the process of negotiation and consultation, learners have an opportunity to contribute to the decision making by bringing their prior knowledge, learning experiences and attitudes and voicing their wants and preferences The collaborative relationship established via ongoing dialogue and the teacher’s appreciation and acknowledgement of their ideas help build and enhance learners’ confidence and self-esteem, which, in turn, promote their interest and motivation They then willingly continue to get involved in the negotiating process

in order to exploit the learning options available for their own benefit Further, the sense of ownership, as mentioned earlier, motivates them to willingly take control

of their own learning (Brandes & Ginnis, 1986; Boomer et al., 1992)

Clearly, negotiation helps foster learner autonomy, which has been one of the major

concerns in the profession since 1960s (Bloor & Bloor, 1986; Boomer et al., 1992; Tudor, 1996; Breen & Littlejohn, 2000) It is what Tudor (1996) calls learner

empowerment, which is “the ultimate goal of a learner-centred approach to

teaching” (p 27) Learner empowerment “relates to learners’ ability to assume an

active and informed role in their language study and, ultimately, to pursue those of their life goals which pertain to language use and learning in self-directive manner”

(ibid., p 28) Breen and Littlejohn (2000) make it clear what it means to be

autonomous in learning:

[…] negotiation entails freedom within discipline It does not mean ‘anything

goes’ Collaborative decision-making requires the constant balancing of an individual agenda with everyone else’s It also requires the constant balancing of particular goals, be they negotiable or not, with personal purposes and preferences for learning In the classroom group, genuine autonomy has to be exercised in an interdependent way

(p 22)

As a result of the involvement in the shared decision-making, learners become responsible members of the classroom community, who will later become “people who are self reliant and flexible in their working lives, socially responsible rather than merely self-seeking and collaborative rather than competitive in their dealings

with other people” (ibid., p 20)

d Negotiation can enrich classroom discourse and the social and cultural resources of the classroom group

A major advantage of syllabus negotiation, or procedural negotiation, is that it provides the context for expanding and enhancing personal negotiation and, more importantly, interactive negotiation, which are essentially beneficial for the learning

of a language In discussing and reaching a consensus related to learning content and form, learners inevitably engage in the process of negotiating for meaning, which includes sharing, checking comprehension and clarifying meanings Underlying this interactive negotiation is the mental process of interpreting and expressing meaning, namely personal negotiation Breen and Littlejohn (2000) have illustrated the relationship of “interactivity and entailment” of the three forms of negotiation as follows:

Personal negotiation Interactive negotiation Procedural negotiation

Figure 2.1: Relationship between three kinds of negotiation

(p 10)

“Genuine communication” generated in the process of negotiating and consulting

“diversifies the input, extends opportunities for learner output, and allows the exercise of judgements of appropriacy and accuracy in relation to the language

made available for learning” (ibid., p 26) Classroom discourse which is diverse

and authentic therefore promotes the acquisition of the target language and hence improves learners’ communicative capacities

Another rewarding aspect of the collaborative process of shaping the learning programme is that it can generate diversified social and cultural resources Breen and Littlejohn (2000) describe the classroom, “a microcosm of the wider society”,

as “multicultural in terms of the different voices and perspectives on the new language, on learning and on most things in the world” (p 23) This multicultural feature is certainly apparent in a class of learners from different cultural backgrounds Each member in the classroom community therefore contributes to

the share decision-making by bringing their own prior knowledge, learning experiences, preferences and views on the teaching and learning process This results in evolving differing ways of working, which, in turn, enrich their own repertory of learning strategies What’s more, the drawing on the multicultural resources of the classroom community can develop “an openness and flexibility in

students’ approaches to the learning” (ibid., p 23)

It should be noted that the generation of diverse language, social and cultural resources is a beneficial part of classroom interaction that is natural or, in other words, unplanned by the institution or teacher in advance This exemplifies what

Boomer et al (1992) call “incidental learning” As Onore (1992) notes, “unlike

traditional curriculum, where it is assumed that what is learned is equivalent to what

is taught, in negotiation it is acknowledged that a great deal of learning is incidental, unplanned, and even unconscious But it is learning, nonetheless” (p 188)

e Negotiation can promote the teacher’s professional development

Not only are the collaborative mode of working and the shared process of making beneficial to learners, they are also a valuable educative experience for the teacher Insights into learners’ objective and subjective needs obtained from ongoing dialogue, new possibilities arising from the sharing of perspectives and expectations and needs and difficulties emerging in the process of evolving and adapting the study programme can “inform and extend a teacher’s pedagogic strategies” (Breen & Littlejohn, 2000, p 27) Moreover, just as the collective process develops in learners an openness and flexibility in their approaches to the learning, it helps the teacher build up a certain habit of tolerance and adaptability (Breen & Littlejohn, 2000) Further, negotiation promotes the teacher’s critical self-evaluation on their performance, which is an essential part of teacher development (Nunan, 1988) And last but not least, the process of transferring control over learning decisions to learners provides the opportunities for the teacher to exercise

decision-“the right to negotiate” (Breen & Littlejohn, 2000, p 27) In other words,

negotiation can foster teacher autonomy, that is “teacher’s willingness, capacity and

freedom to take control of their own teaching and learning” (Huang, 2006, p 41)

2.1.1.4 Guidelines

Besides arguing for the advantages of classroom negotiation, some writing on negotiated decision-making attempts to devise some guidelines for applying collaborative modes of working in classrooms

In his “Negotiating the curriculum: Programming for learning”, Cook (1992), basing on learners’ description of how they learn best, has proposed one model illustrating learners’ requirements for optimum learning and another model for the negotiating process as a way to satisfy these requirements with detailed guidelines

on how to implement the model The way of enactment is, according to Cook, up to the teacher and students involved but the principles should be the same, which he summarises as follows:

• The learners make the running The teacher guides and helps, but as a negotiator, not as a dictator

• Timing, order and depth of treatment are negotiable factors, determined by

learner need, purpose and intention, not teacher prejudice or predisposition

• Language must be allowed to work for the students, who must talk, write and read themselves into clarifications, understandings and decisions The teacher-like temptation to do it all for them is to be avoided (The latter way, teachers learn, but students don’t)

• Learners need to work together as well as individually Their needs and best

learning means should determine when and why the effort is to be individual

or collective

• Students should be helped when help is needed, not before or in case Owners

will call for help to preserve what they own, much before employees will call for help in serving their masters

• […] an overriding goal of the classroom is process oriented Thus what is to be learnt is only part of the classroom context Students need to acquire the ways and processes of finding things out, of working alone and together to solve their problems The whole negotiation approach is focused on inculcating this principle It is a principle that enhances the acquisition of information, not one that encumbers it

(pp 25-6) Cook’s models and principles are, however, devised for teaching and learning in general Guidelines specifically suggested for language classes can be found in Nunan (1988b, 1999) and Breen and Littlejohn (2000)

According to Nunan (1988), the negotiated curriculum consists of elements similar

to those in a traditional one: planning (including needs analysis, goals and objectives setting, content and methodology selection), implementation and evaluation However, it is significantly different from the traditional one in that learners are encouraged to get involved in decisions related to the content and form

of learning; the curriculum is thus a “collaborative effort” of all the participants in

the classroom (ibid., p 2)

Nunan (1999) views negotiation as a “continuum” and devises 9 specific steps to move learners along the continuum:

Step 1: Make instruction goals clear to learners

Step 2: Allow learners to create their own goals

Step 3: Encourage learners to use their second language outside the classroom Step 4: Raise awareness of learning processes

Step 5: Help learners identify their own preferred styles and strategies

Step 6: Encourage learner choice

Step 7: Allow learners to generate their own tasks

Step 8: Encourage learners to become teachers

Step 9: Encourage learners to become researchers

(For further explanation and examples of the steps, see Nunan, 1999, pp 17-23) Some of these steps can, as Nunan (1999) notes, “overlap” and “be introduced simultaneously” during the process (p 17)

Breen and Littlejohn (2000) propose a process syllabus as a practical framework for shared decision-making between the teacher and learners regarding the content and form of language learning

Figure 2.2: A process syllabus

(p 38)

A process syllabus identifies “classroom decisions as potentials for negotiation

whereby teacher and students together can evolve and work through the actual curriculum of the classroom group” (ibid., p 29) First of all, it specifies the range

of decisions open to negotiation:

- Purposes: Why are we learning the language?

- Contents: What should be the focus of our work?

- Ways of working: How should the learning work be carried out?

- Evaluation: How well has the learning proceeded?

Each of the above questions can be broken down into a number of sub-questions For instance, some sub-questions regarding the ways of working are “how will the time available be organised? What working procedure or set of instructions should

be followed? Who will work with whom? […] What can best be done in class and

what best outside class?” (ibid., p 31) What question(s) and sub-question(s) to be

addressed in the negotiation depend on the participants and environment in the given learning context

The second component in a process syllabus is the negotiation cycle which consists

of 3 steps The first step is the selection of and discussion about those decisions in the full range above which may be open to negotiation or need to be negotiated The second step is the implementation of the negotiated decisions at the previous step The third step is the evaluation of the learning experience in terms of the learning outcomes and the process of decision-making and action-undertaking Breen and Littlejohn (2000) stress the importance of the final step since the information obtained from the evaluation can help teacher and students make more informed choices in the next cycle of shared decision-making, if any

The last component is the curriculum pyramid which specifies the levels to which the negotiation cycle can be applied As Breen and Littlejohn (2000) point out, the distinction between the levels is not clear and there is an overlapping between the levels And negotiation at one particular level may follow from or lead to negotiation at the level above or below it Which levels may be available for negotiation depends on the constraints in the teaching context Negotiation about the curriculum is feasible in situations where there is no externally determined curriculum, syllabus or materials In cases where these constraints exist, however, higher levels of the pyramid (a task and a sequence of tasks, for example) are available for discussion and compromise

In brief, a process syllabus “offers a framework for decision-making for evolving the curriculum of a particular classroom group by proposing the range of decisions open to negotiation, the steps in a negotiation cycle and the levels in a curriculum to

which the cycle can be applied” (ibid., p 37) Breen and Littlejohn’s framework has

two implications First, there is always room for negotiation in a language classroom Second, “when a process syllabus is applied in practice in a particular teaching situation, there is not one process syllabus or even a typical process

syllabus, but a range of different teacher-student applications of the framework”

(loc cit.)

Implied in the guidelines suggested by most writers is that the undertaking of negotiation is not an all-or-nothing process (Tudor, 1996; Nunan, 1999; Breen & Littlejohn, 2000) To quote Nunan (1999), “there are levels and degrees of negotiation” (p 17) The extent of negotiation depends on the participants in the process and the contextual factors of the given educational setting

2.1.1.5 Contextual factors

A number of contextual factors are often mentioned as constraints on the potential

of procedural negotiation in the classroom

a A pre-determined syllabus

A first factor that is generally thought to be incompatible with the notion of negotiation and joint selection of learning content and form is the existence of a pre-set syllabus While it is true that pre-determined decisions regarding the objectives, the content, the learning materials and the assessment policy put limits on the potential for negotiation, few syllabuses, in reality, allow no room for negotiation (Tudor, 1996; Nunan, 1999; Breen & Littlejohn, 2000) This is manifest in the wide range of negotiation possibilities revealed by Breen and Littlejohn’s (2000) framework for negotiation as described in the preceding section Moreover, constraints imposed by an externally-designed syllabus in fact have positive impacts

on the planning and implementing of shared decision-making (Tudor, 1996; Breen

& Littlejohn, 2000) They provide teachers and learners with “a sense of guidance”

as to what is and is not negotiable and lead to “valuable learning opportunities” as a result of “the attempt to solve conflicts between the aims and content of the curriculum and the needs and interests of particular learners at a given time” (Serrano-Sampedro, 2000, p 126)

b Time

A second factor that is often referred to as a reason for the rejection of procedural negotiation is time At first glance the process of involving learners into decisions related to their learning process appears to be time-consuming, not least in the initial stages It is, however, impossible to say that negotiated modes of working are less efficient In fact, in teacher directed approaches, since the teacher’s reasons for classroom decisions, learners’ interpretations of what is done in class and their own learning agendas are rarely opened up for overt discussion, misunderstandings may occur on students’ part which are, unfortunately, more often than not ‘hidden’ This,

in turn, “may actually slow down the process of learning for many students and, therefore, work against the time we may have available with them” (Breen & Littlejohn, 2000, p 275) In collaborative forms of teaching, on the other hand, discussion and consultation help “reach a shared understanding” of the decisions made by the institution and the teacher and students’ different learning agendas

(ibid., p 9) Further, the process may lead to more appropriate decisions regarding

the learning content and form, thereby increasing learners’ motivation The teaching and learning process may thus proceed “more quickly and more efficiently and effectively” (Boomer et al., 1992, p 27) In addition, taking time to negotiate with learners is really worthwhile, considering the variety of benefits pointed out in section 2.1.1.3 of this chapter Moreover, in situations where class time is limited, negotiated decision-making is particularly essential since it helps set more realistic goals, which in turn lead to greater involvement and better learning (Nunan, 1988; Breen & Littlejohn, 2000)

c Large class size and learner diversity

In addition to the presence of a pre-set syllabus and time factor, large class size and learner diversity are often viewed as obstacles to participation and negotiation in shared decision-making On the one hand, these two factors do reduce the opportunities for individual contributions and make it difficult to accommodate individual needs and reach an agreement On the other hand, they stress the need for

classroom negotiation since, if undertaken with sensitivity and flexibility, it enables learners to work in their preferred ways and at their own pace and facilitates individual attention (Serrano-Sampedro, 2000) Moreover, students’ different perspectives, experiences and capabilities, which are called upon in the negotiating process, help enrich the teaching - learning experience and encourage an openness and flexibility in approaches to learning and teaching (Boomer et al., 1992; Breen & Littlejohn, 2000)

of negotiation in different educational contexts (Breen & Littlejohn, 2000) Moreover, speaking of the influence of students’ cultural backgrounds, there is an interesting note on the learning attitudes of Asian students in general and Vietnamese students in particular While the general assumption is that Asian students are passive, some writing proves the opposite Littlewood (2000), for example, found that generally:

Asian students do not, in fact, wish to be spooned with facts from an knowing ‘fount of knowledge’ They want to explore knowledge by themselves and find their own answers Most of all, they want to do this together with their fellow students in an atmosphere which is friendly and supportive

all-(p 34, as quoted in Pham Phu Quynh Na, 2000, p 3)

His study also shows that Vietnamese students are the least passive Littlewood (2000) points out that much has remained as to how one’s culture influences one’s characteristics Nunan (1999), from his working experience with students from non-Western contexts which are characterised by high-structure, transmission modes of learning, concludes that these learners “generally want to adopt a more active role” but “the problem for them is that they do not know how” “Much, then, would,” as

Breen and Littlejohn (2000) point out, “seem to depend on how negotiated work is

approached, rather than on a general factor of appropriacy or otherwise to specific cultural contexts” (p 281)

To conclude, contextual factors should not be seen as ‘constraints’, i.e problems and difficulties, but rather “‘local features’, which may prove to have positive and exploitable features”, as Holliday and Cooke (1982, pp 136-7) suggest (as quoted

in Tudor, 1996, p 133) Given their influence on the negotiating process, teachers need to take them into consideration when planning and adopting a negotiative approach to syllabus specification

2.1.1.6 Roles of learners and teachers

What has been said so far highlights the active role of learners in their language study Conventionally, it is the teacher who makes decisions regarding what to learn when and how; learners hence take the part of passive recipients of the learning process In a negotiative approach, however, there is a transfer of control over the management of learning from teacher to learners The latter are offered the opportunities to have a voice in the shaping of their own language programme, contributing their ideas, making choices, initiating learning activities and so on In short, learners are encouraged to play a more active, participatory and self-directive role in their study (Bloor & Bloor, 1988; Boomer et al., 1992; Tudor, 1996; Nunan, 1999; Breen & Littlejohn, 2000)

As learners become active partners in the process, teachers’ role must change accordingly One point that should be made clear right from the beginning is that