You are on page 1of 10

Running head: A NEGOTIATED SYLLABUS AND INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN IN ELT

A Negotiated Syllabus and Instructional Design in ELT:


At a Primary School in Southern Thailand
Michael Edwards
Systematic Design of Instruction
Thongsook College

A NEGOTIATED SYLLABUS AND INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN IN ELT

Abstract
The negotiated syllabus is a radical step from traditional approaches to the instructional design
process. The idea entails an increased level of student-involvement in choice of content, and
teacher-autonomy over the use and development of instructional materials. The analysis herein
reviews a primary schools operations in Thailand throughout the second term of the 2013
academic year. Learners of year six participate in a general English language course, and assist in
formulating a negotiated syllabus. The case analysis is made from the perspective of Richards
forward, central, and backward designs in language teaching. Potential limitations are found
in the difficulty of specifying detailed criteria as the amount of negotiation increases, yet
significant benefits are shown as students take active responsibility for their own learning
through meaningful dialogue.

A NEGOTIATED SYLLABUS AND INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN IN ELT

A Negotiated Syllabus and Instructional Design in ELT


In recent years, a prevailing ideology in ELT literature can be characterized by a shift
from methodology, to a focus on cultural concerns, and ethical considerations related to the roles
of teachers. As a result, what Richards calls the process in curriculum design is now receiving
a lesser degree of attention than those aspects of teaching related to planning mechanisms
(2013). Of course, there is no lack of ingenuity in establishing language teaching and learning
methods, but the momentum against determining teachers use of them is now largely
discredited. Instead, academics suggest broader approaches based on enlightened eclecticism
(Brown, 2001), or macro-strategies consisting of principles intended to guide teachers in
adapting instruction to varying learning, as well as cultural contexts (Kumaravadivelu, 2003).
These may be seen in light of the larger teachers-as-researchers movement promoting a move
away from the transmission model of instruction. Furthermore, it is suggested that textbooks
may be the new way of controlling methodological decisions through pre-determined content and
design (Meddings & Thornbury, 2009). Therefore, allowing textbooks to dictate content
coverage is presumed to be counterintuitive to the responsiveness of uncovering the syllabus
within (p. 14).
On the other hand, a negotiated syllabus seems to cut through much of the adversity of
top-down instructional designs (Clarke, 1991). Nation defines a negotiated syllabus as simply
the teacher and learners working together to decide what will be taught and how it will be learnt
(2013). There are several ways of implementing this type of syllabus, including a strong
version in which learners decide on everything from functions to objectives, to other approaches
that consider more of the teachers input. In most EFL contexts, a collective negotiation between
teachers, students, and administrators is likely to occur. Therefore, a closer look at the

A NEGOTIATED SYLLABUS AND INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN IN ELT

effectiveness of these negotiations should reveal a design that is more realistic in practice, while
serving to provide for authentic interaction between all who are involved.
Instructional Design
Richards defines three general approaches to curriculum design, including forward,
central, and backward designs (2013). All of these are illustrated in differing sequences between
content, process, and outcomes. The most common of these is the forward design. The
content is pre-determined in syllabus form, and a teachers methodology is derived from it. The
implementation of curriculum is applied in a linear order from which learning outcomes may be
observed last. Central design begins with choosing a methodology which results in learners
responses to the process, as well as the content to be delivered. Many methods characterized by
this model are meant to replace the use of grammatical and functional syllabi. Lastly, a
backward design begins with utilizing learning outcomes, such as carrying out a needs analysis
before arriving at methodology and content.
Depending on the perspective of time, a negotiated syllabus could fall under any of these
categories. For example, it is common for language teachers to rearrange the sequence of
content in textbooks by facilitating a class vote intended to prioritize each selection through
consensus. This would fall under the category of forward design since the content is preselected. If a teacher who is set on using a particular method elicits class content from the
students, then this could be seen as central design. In the case of backward design, a teacher
could assess learning outcomes before negotiating the types of methods or content to be used in a
course. In any of these, content would be subject to change throughout the period of instruction.

A NEGOTIATED SYLLABUS AND INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN IN ELT

A Negotiated Syllabus for a Primary School in Thailand


Figure 1 shows the formulation of a negotiated syllabus detailing lesson coverage at a
Catholic primary school in Surat Thani, Thailand. Procedures are carried out during the second
term of studies in the 2013 school year. Sixty two students participate in general conversation
classes once per week for a total of 14 hours per term. Interests and hobbies are elicited from
year six students in order to come up with lesson content for the rest of the term. Additionally, at
the schools request, a head instructor working full-time in the program recommends including
STEM subjects in the curriculum. Thus, content selection is collectively negotiated, while
activities and outcomes are expected in the course of events. If the negotiations themselves are
seen as output, then they would be a product of backward design. Otherwise, the fact that the
remaining procedures come after content selection entails a forward approach.

Topic(s)
Week 1
Technology
Week 2
Television
Week 3
Video Games

Context
electronic items
& purchasing
them
watching movies,
T.V. series &
time
game consoles &
playing video
games

Primary Skill(s)
1. Listening and
Speaking
2. Writing
1. Listening and
Speaking
2. Writing
1. Listening and
Speaking
2. Writing

Week4
Music
Week 5
Music
Week 6
Natural Disasters

music genres &


expressing
stylistic
preferences
attending
concerts,
listening to music
emergency
communication

Listening and
Speaking
Listening and
Speaking
1. Listening and
Speaking

Main Activities
Extensive
Elicitation,
Presentation &
Dialogue
Review,
Presentation,
Dialogue, &
Games
Review,
Presentation,
Dialogue, Games
& Assessments
Review, Video,
Presentation &
Dialogue
Review,
Presentation &
Drawing Tasks
Presentation,
Role-Play,

A NEGOTIATED SYLLABUS AND INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN IN ELT

Week 7
Review and
Christmas

for disaster
scenarios
all prior material
+ writing a
holiday message
to family

2. Reading
1.Writing
2. Listening and
Speaking

Week 8
Game Review

all prior material


+ participating in
the game

Listening and
Speaking

Automobiles

car parts,
models, class &
lifestyle

Listening and
Speaking

Week 9

6
Digital Reading
& TPR
Video, Writing
Greetings, RolePlay
Review,
Formative
Assessments,
Role-Play,
Games
Role-Play,
Presentation,
Dialogue, Games

1. Reading

Week 10
Science

biology, anatomy,
chemistry &
2. Listening and
experiments
Speaking

Video, Digital
Reading,
Presentation,
Dialogue

3. Writing
Week 11
Make-Up Lessons

revisiting all
prior material

All Skills

Presentation,
Dialogues, Role
Plays, Digital
Readings

1. Reading

Week 12
All Prior Topics
Week 13

Testing

Week 14

Festivals and
Holidays

short stories
about all prior
contexts

2. Writing

all prior material

3. Speaking
Speaking

well wishes &


celebrating

Listening and
Speaking

Jigsaw Readings,
Group Tasks,
Group
Presentations
Summative
Evaluation
Presentation,
Dialogue,
Farewells

Figure 1. A syllabus for a primary school in southern Thailand

The syllabus is noticeably lacking in grammatical sequencing, but grammar may be


implied conjointly as each context represents a broader functional usage. Moreover, the actual
process is not entirely taken into account. For example, much of the input is modeled, and from

A NEGOTIATED SYLLABUS AND INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN IN ELT

that, students are often observed while constructing iterative statements: often variations
reflecting their own interests and backgrounds. This is first described as follows:

In many of my slides, I include full sentences or questions like: Which one do you
like? I took into account Dianne Larsen-Freemans iterations in the article I read last
week. I was inspired by her recommendations and instead of asking students to repeat
after me; I reiterated the phrase with a variation, making it obvious that I wanted to hear
something other than my exact words. Students responded well to this technique (2011).

If these iterations are consistently encouraged, the syllabus would be better described as part of a
central design. The presentations listed under activities throughout the term would reinforce
that description as procedures continue under a somewhat PPP-light process.
The topics in weeks two through five, and weeks eight and nine are chosen through
student-consensus. Academic topics are included at the schools request, while further
instructional materials are developed for modeling usage, formative and summative evaluations.
A brief situational analysis confirming the initial successes of the syllabus agreement is detailed
as follows:

The students had prior exposure to basic grammar within books I had previously been
required to teach from directly. This was their first class of the year with a mostly
communicative approach
I feel as though my first week of facilitating classes gave me time to really test new
techniques inside the rooms in this school. I feel as though the time was needed to work

A NEGOTIATED SYLLABUS AND INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN IN ELT

on that specifically. I now know that these techniques are able to be executed
successfully in class.

The fact that a book is followed in the prior term seems to create an atmosphere of hesitancy, but
by the end of the term, summative evaluations capture interactions that are operationalized by
using a rubric against the terms materials. The limitations of the book on assessments puts
students behind on speaking skills by demanding writing before readiness.
Extended Reflection
In further reflecting on the outcomes of this syllabus, three limitations come to mind:

1. Missing grammatical elements should be expressed in terms of process over linguistic


categories, or the lack thereof. Another list could be created for the ways in which
grammar is retrieved and reformulated.
2. Another list could be made for secondary skills, such as critical and creative thinking.
3. Math could be considered in addition to other STEM subjects listed in the syllabus.

All of these emphasize the importance of schematic knowledge, and its importance in
instructional design. Whether through highlighting grammar, encouraging critical thinking,
or finding a medium of interaction in a common subject: the choices and trust involved in
this design are evident through the continuous process of reflection. The real possibility and
educational benefit of a negotiated syllabus is illustrated in this case. Of course, its reality
lies in a collective application of the forward and central approaches. While it may be worth
accessing the data on large scale implementations of these syllabi, there is no doubt that this

A NEGOTIATED SYLLABUS AND INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN IN ELT

is a workable idea that has great potential. By freeing teachers and students from the likes of
a pre-selected curriculum, the educative possibilities are vast. This is an idea that promotes
both ownership of ones own language faculties, and intercultural communication at a
genuine level.

A NEGOTIATED SYLLABUS AND INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN IN ELT

10

References
Brown, D. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy.
(2nd Ed.). Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. Pearson Education. White Plains, NY, USA.
Clarke, D. F. (1991). The negotiated syllabus: What is it and how is it likely to work? Oxford
Journals, Applied Linguistics. 12 (1): 13-28. DOI:10.1093/applin/12.1.13.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Beyond Methods: Macrostrategies for Language Teaching. Yale
University Press. New Haven, CT, USA. London, UK.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2012). On the roles of repetition in language teaching and learning. Applied
Linguistics Review. 3(2). 195-210. DOI: 10.1515/applirev-2012-0009.
Meddings, L. & Thornbury, S. (2009). Teaching Unplugged: Dogme in English Language
Teaching. Delta Publishing.
Nation, P. (2013). What should every ESL teacher know? 16. Compass Publishing.
Richards, J. C. (2013). Curriculum approaches in language teaching: Forward, central, and
backward design. RELC Journal. 44(1), 5-33. University of Sydney. Australia.
RELC. Singapore. DOI: 10.1177/0033688212473293.

You might also like