Negotiated learning and its impact on students’ motivation

The pedagogy of negotiated learning is a modern technique adopted by many educational

systems. Its purpose is to improve students’ motivation and learning autonomy. Carlyn
Sproston, the author of the article “When students negotiate: an action research case study
of a Year 8 English class in a secondary college in Victoria, Australia (sproston, 2008) used
the findings from a research on motivational dip on Year 8 students, called “Year 8
phenomenon” (Doddington, Flutter, & Rudduck, 1999), to conduct an action research with
Year 8 English class to analyse the students experience, and its impact on their motivation,
when they are “given the opportunity to be part of the decision-making process” (sproston,
2008). Yu-Liang Ting, the author of the article “Tapping into students' digital literacy and
designing negotiated learning to promote learner autonomy” (Ting, 2015), conducted a
mixed-method research to addressed the same issue of negotiated learning and its
relationship to motivation and learning autonomy. Her research was on 36 university
students studying an engineering course of multimedia technology. While Sproston’s
research was mainly focused on the negotiation aspects and its impact on students’
motivation, Tings’ research looked at the negotiated learning and its impact on autonomous
learning. Both researchers agreed that negotiated learning has a positive relation on
students’ learning. In this essay I will critically analyse Sproston’s article in term of its
structure, argument and evidence and whether any gaps exist in her evidence and her
arguments. I will also compare it to Yu-Liang Tings’s article and highlight any similarities and
differences between the two of them.

The research:
The movement towards evidence based education which is encouraged by many western
governments to improve the educational standard (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2015), teachers and
educators has to adopt research as part of their professional practice. Action research is a
type of research carried out by the educators in their work setting. Its purpose is to
“improve their professional practice” (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2015) . There are many different
models of action research. Sporston adopts the principle understanding that action research
requires “more of the researcher than the application of research methods” (Sumara &
Carson., 1997) but she also mentions in her article that she followed Boomer’s (1992) model
of action research. I think Sporston made the right choice of selecting an action research for
her study because of the local nature of the problem she was trying to solve and the
convenience of having her own students as research participants (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2015).
Yu-Liang ting chose to use a mixed-methods research which is another type of “study that
uses both quantitative and qualitative techniques for data collection and analysis” (p. 193).
Although it is not wrong to use the mixed-methods but, I would have chosen action research
for the same reasons mentioned above.

The research Focus:

There are many similarities between the two researches; the main similarity is on the
research topic which is the negotiated learning. Negotiated learning for Sporston was the
main driver for the improvement of students’ motivation. She noted that before the
introduction of the negotiated approach, the students saw English as “boring, repetitive and
static”. After the introduction of the negotiated approach, it became clear that there was a
“change in student perceptions” (sproston, 2008). They “developed a more positive

1
relationship with their teacher and the ability to work with their peers in a positive way” (p.
205). Ting too, found out that negotiated learning is important driver for acquiring digital
literacy and achieving “Learner autonomy” (Ting, 2015). Ting also noted that negotiated
learning is not for the entire curriculum and “some parts or aspects are to be decided upon
by the teacher” (p. 26). She included in her study a table for the proposed learning design
and negotiability (table 1, p. 28). Similarly, Sporston also noted that the negotiation process
was very time consuming and she decided to make the decisions and discuss her thoughts
with the students (p. 196). I strongly agree with both findings and believe that negotiated
plays an important part in developing autonomous learning (Yukse, 2010). I also concur with
both the researcher in acknowledging that negotiated learning is only for some parts of the
learning process. Especially in Sporston’ study, some of her student, according to Piaget, will
still be in “concrete Operation” and will not have been be fully developed to make decision
on abstract issues (Clarke & Pittaway, 2014). For that reason I think Sporston enlisted some
of the parents in her study.

The research participants:

It is very common practice in action research for the collaborators to be the students.
Sporston enlisted in her study 25 students (12 boys and 13 girls) from the English class
students. She also enlisted five willing parents in interviews process to give feedback about
their children’s involvement. Three colleagues partnered with Sporston and were involved
in observation and feedback process.
Involving parents and other colleagues was a very cleaver decision by Sporston for three
reasons:
1. It increased the number of participants and consequently has collected more data.
2. Involving parents and other teacher broadened the views and helped to validate
decision making. The teacher’s involvement, in my opinion, brought into the study the
schools’ cultural dimension and helped in decision making knowing the school’s culture
and what is acceptable and what is not.
3. As I mentioned in the previous section, some of the students in year 8 would not be
able/comfortable to decide for themselves therefore, having some of the parents there
would help in negotiation and decision making process.

What I thought is missing from Sporstons’ study is some kind of demographic information
about the participant similar to what Ting provided in her study in table 2 (p. 29).

Data collection:
Sporston used only qualitative data for her study. She used five different sources of data
collection (Figure 2, p. 189). The data gathering, for the most part, was from the 25 students,
five parents and three teacher colleagues. The process or the pathway followed for data
collection technique for each cycle was thoroughly illustrated in her study (p. 190-191). Ting
in her study gathered quantitative and qualitative data to provide a cross-reference and an
insight into the process of negotiated learning. All the qualitative data were transcribed
verbatim. Ting used two researchers, working independently, for transcribing and coding.
“Differences in coding were continually compared, discussed, and resolved” (p. 28). The
data collection techniques used in both studies was suitable and well thought of.

Data analysis:

2
Sporston used a “thematic approach” (p. 188) for data analysis (Knight, 2002). The
approach was illustrated in Figure 6, p. 193). The questionnaire data from both researchers
were manually collated and visually depicted. In the case of Sporston, it was converted into
a pie chart. Ting presented her questionnaire data in a table format (table 3, p. 30). Other
qualitative data was analysed differently depending on data source. For example; the
students’ and the researchers’ journals in Sporstons’ study were read and responded to
during each action cycle. The results were discussed at the classroom meetings and in the
guided interviews. The next action cycle was also modified according to the results. She
used Boomer’s process (Boomer, 1978) which she illustrated in Figure 7 (p. 195). I founded
the instant use of information, and the readjustment of future phases of the research, to be
very efficient way of using information. The flexibility of action research allow for this
ongoing readjustment throughout the research lifecycle (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2015).

Findings:
The findings from both researchers clearly demonstrated that negotiated learning is a major
contributing factor to improving students’ motivation and to foster an autonomous learning.
Their research findings were in agreement with other researches in this area (Boomer, 1978;
Ma and Gao, 2010). In tings’ study, 34-out of 36 students harboured a positive attitude
towards negotiated learning. In summing up the students’ perception, Sporston notes that
prior to the research students’ perception were “generally negative”. they saw English as
“boring, repetitive and static” . In their early journals and in their responses in the interview
they were “critical of the lack of variety and activity in their classes. They strongly indicated
their desire for their classes to be interesting and fun” (sproston, 2008) (p. 205). However,
after the introduction of the negotiated learning there was a positive change in their
perception and their attitude. Sporston was able to identify and categorise a list of eight
themes that students believed resulted from the introduction of the negotiated approach (p.
205).

Application for teaching:

The applications of the research for teaching are in two folds:
1. The advantages of introducing negotiated leaning in classroom – It is evident from the
data from both the researches that there is advantage, for students and teacher, in
negotiating learning. Sporston note that such advantage is not the result of negotiation
alone. Negotiation was the catalyst for other elements to emerge. One of the
advantages of introducing a negotiated learning was enablement of students to have
some choice on the tasks that they would complete. Through choice, students became
more motivated to learn and to achieve (p. 205). It also made the students more
committed to each other and accepts responsibility for their learning.

2. The advantage of the action research approach - In reflecting, Sporston realises the
importance of “positive relationship in the classroom and the way in which to organise
the teaching” (p. 206). Her conclusion was that the action research was instrumental in
improving her teaching techniques and strategies. It increased her understanding and
strengthen her believe “that it is unrealistic to expect that simply providing information
will result in learning for students” (p. 206). That led her to look for techniques that are
more adequate and meet the need of her students. At some stage during the study,
Sporston wished that she had chosen an easier method of research but, as she

3
 continued, she quickly realised that action research created a mean of collaboration
with her students and her colleagues. It contributed to the development of positive
relationship with her students. The research also led to valuable discussions with her
colleagues about the ways in which teach young adolescents. Her colleagues came to
learn about her activities and her teaching techniques. She was delighted when some of
them were interested in trying some of the activities in their classes.

Education, like other important professions, is moving towards evidence based learning in
an effort to improve the educational standard and educational experience for the students.
Educational researches are adopted by teachers and are becoming part of their professional
practice. Action research is popular method of research in education and its main purpose is
to improve the teaching practice. In this essay we looked at two researches that focused on
the issue of “Negotiated learning” and its impact on motivation and autonomous learning.
We critically analysed them, we compared and contrasted them to each other. Both
researches findings confirmed that Negotiated learning is beneficial for improving students’
motivation for learning and their relationship with the teachers. We also discussed the
implication these research for education and stipulated that the research was instrumental
in improving the teaching techniques and strategies.

4
References
Boomer, G. (1978). Negotiating the curriculum. English in Australia , 16-29.

Clarke, M., & Pittaway, S. (2014). Marsh’s becoming a teacher (6th ed.). Sydney, NSW, Australia:
Pearson Australia.

Doddington, C., Flutter, J., & Rudduck, J. (1999). Exploring and explaining ‘dips’ in motivation and.
Research in Education, 61, 29–40.

Gall, M., Gall, J., & Borg, W. (2015). Applying Educational Research: How to read,do,and use research
to solve problems of Practice (7th ed.). Hobokin, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Knight, P. T. (2002). Small-scale research. London: Sage.

sproston, C. (2008, June). When students negotiate: an action research case study of a Year 8 English
class in a secodary college in Victoria, Australia. Educational Action Research, 16(2), 187–208.

Sumara , D., & Carson., T. (1997). Reconceptualizing action research as a living practice (Vols. xiii–
xxxv). New York : Peter Lang.

Ting, Y.-L. (2015). Tapping into students' digital literacy and designing negotiated learning. Internet
and Higher Education, 26, 25-32.

Yukse, U. (2010). Integrating Curiculum: Developing student autonomy in learning in. Journal of
College Teaching & Learning(7), 1-8.