THE IMPACT OF NEGOTIATED LESSON PLAN ON INTERMEDIATE EFL LEARNERS’ VOCABULARY KNOWLEDGE

Authors

  • Mona Porkand Department of English Language, Rasht Branch, Islamic Azad University, Rasht, Iran
  • Majid Pourmohammadi PhD, Assistant Professor, Department of English Language, Rasht Branch, Islamic Azad University, Rasht, Iran

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.46827/ejse.v9i1.4678

Keywords:

EFL learner, negotiated lesson plan, vocabulary knowledge

Abstract

The current study investigated the effect of the traditional lesson planning determined by teachers and the negotiated lesson plan (NLP) on Iranian intermediate EFL learners’ vocabulary knowledge. To this end, a copy of Solution Placement Test was administered to 47 learners, and 36 participants at the intermediate level of language proficiency were homogeneously selected. They were then divided into two groups of 18 participants as the experimental and the control groups. Next, the vocabulary pretest was conducted to measure the participants’ vocabulary knowledge and check the homogeneity of the groups at the beginning of the treatment. The learners in the experimental group shared their ideas in small groups, had the key role and enjoyed shared-decision making deciding what they would do for the next sessions of the course. The learners in the control group had no role in determining the course materials. The result of data analysis based on their pretest and posttest scores of vocabulary showed that the participants of the experimental group became better vocabulary learners after receiving NLP treatment compared to those in the pre-determined lesson plan that received unnoticeable results from the pretest to the posttest. The teachers and the material developers need to consider the negotiated lesson planning into account so that the issue of learner involvement in instructional materials is paid attention to.

 

Article visualizations:

Hit counter

Author Biographies

  • Mona Porkand, Department of English Language, Rasht Branch, Islamic Azad University, Rasht, Iran

    Mona Porkand got her MA in TEFL from Islamic Azad University, Rasht, Iran. She is currently teaching English at Safir Language Institute in Rasht, Iran. Her research interests mostly include teaching language components such as vocabulary as well as pronunciation.

  • Majid Pourmohammadi, PhD, Assistant Professor, Department of English Language, Rasht Branch, Islamic Azad University, Rasht, Iran

    Majid Pourmohammadi is an assistant professor and faculty member at Islamic Azad University, Rasht, Iran. He has written some coursebooks and published many articles in several high-ranking journals. His research interests mostly include TESOL and teaching language skills.

References

Allwright, R. L. (2017). Why don’t learners learn what learners teach? The interaction hypothesis. In D. M. Singleton & D. G. Little (Eds.), Language learning informal and informal contexts (pp. 3-18). Dublin, I.R.A.L.

Azarnoosh, M., & Kargozari, H. R. (2018). Negotiated syllabuses. In A. Faravani, M. Zeraatpishe, M. Azarnoosh, & H. R. Kargozari (Eds.), Issues in syllabus design (pp. 135-147). Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Blumberg, P. (2018). Learner-centered teachers: A practical guide for faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Retrieved from http://www.usciences.edu/teaching/Learner-Centered

Breen, M. (2017). Contemporary paradigms in syllabus design. Language Teaching, 20(2), 81-92. https://doi.org/10.101/S0261444800000450x

Candlin, C. N. (2014). Syllabus design as a critical process. In C. J. Brumfit, (Ed.), General English syllabus design (pp. 29-46). London: Pergamon Press.

Dall’Alba, G., & Sandberg, J. (2016). Unveiling professional development: A critical review of stage models. Review of Educational Research, 76(3), 383-412 https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543076003383

Hall, G. (2014). Exploring English language teaching: Language in action. Routledge, New York.

Hutchinson, T., & Waters, A. (2015). English for specific purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

John, P. D. (2016). Lesson planning and the student teacher: Re-thinking the dominant model. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(4), 483-498.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270500363620

Kizlik, B. (2018) Pedagogy and practice: Teaching and learning in secondary schools. Retrieved from http://nationalstrategies.standards.dcsf.gov.uk/node/95764?uc=force_uj

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.

McCarten, J. (2017). Teaching vocabulary: Lessons from the corpus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Peyvandi, G., Azarnoosh, M., & Siyyari, N. (2021). The effect of negotiated syllabus on autonomy of ESP students: A mixed methods study. Journal of Language and Translation, 11(3), 131-150.

Pellegrino, J. W. (2014). Complex learning environments: Connecting learning theory, instructional design, and technology. In N. M. Seel & S. Dijkstra (Eds.), Curriculum, plans, and processes in instructional design: International perspectives (pp. 25-48). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Rahimi, S. (2014). Teacher cognition vis-à-vis vocabulary teaching. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(3), 652-660. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.4.3.652-660

Richards, J. C., & Lockhart C. (2017). Reflective teaching in second language classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Wilson, R. (2015). Thinking on their feet: Assessing teachers' flexibility and responsiveness in the language classroom. In R. Wilson & M. Poulter (Eds.), Assessing language teachers' professional skills and knowledge (pp. 229-241). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Downloads

Published

2023-02-20

Issue

Vol. 9 No. 1 (2023)

Section

Articles

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

 

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

 

  1. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

 

  1. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).