دیدگاه‌های مدرسان در مورد زبان تخصصی هوانوردی

نوع مقاله: علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری در رشته آموزش زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه ارومیه

2 عضو هیات علمی گروه زبان و ادبیات انگلیسی دانشگاه ارومیه

3 عضو هیات علمی گروه زبان و ادبیات انگلیسی، دانشگاه ارومیه

چکیده

در ایران، دوره‌های زبان انگلیسی تخصصی هوانوردی را اغلب مدرسان زبان انگلیسی متخصص در امر هوانوردی و معلمان زبان انگلیسی تدریس می‌کنند که متخصص هوانوردی نیستند. پژوهش حاضر، به بررسی دیدگاه‌های این دو گروه مدرسان در خصوص تدریس زبان هوانوردی، برای اولین بار در ایران می‌پردازد. دیدگاه‌های هشت مدرس این دوره‌ها از طریق مصاحبه و پرسشنامه مطالعه شده است که نتایج، نشان‌دهندة عدم یکنواختی روش تدریس زبان انگلیسی در بین دو گروه مدرسان این دوره‌ها بود. از دیدگاه مدرسان متخصص، زبان تخصصی باید بیشتر به‌صورت عملی و کاربردی همراه با تأکید زیاد روی مفاهیم تخصصی، آموزش معلم‌محور و بازخورد‌های آموزشی مستقیم از طرف مدرسان تدریس شود. از نظر مدرسان زبان، این دوره‌ها بیشتر باید روش و اصول تدریس، آموزش مشارکت‌محور و بازخوردهای زبان-آموزمحور را مدّ نظر قرار دهد. نتایج این تحقیق می‌تواند در شناخت وضعیت مدرسان فعلی این دوره‌ها و انتخاب مدرسان اصلح (با توجه به آخرین دستاوردها) در امر آموزش زبان انگلیسی برای اهداف ویژه سودمند باشد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Teacher attitudes to aviation English programs

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mehdi Ghaedrahmat 1
  • Javad Gholami 2
  • Zhila Mohammadnia 3
1 PhD Student in TEFL, Department of English, Urmia University
2 English, Faculty of Humanities, Urmia University
3 Department of English, Faculty of Humanities, Urmia University
چکیده [English]

In Iran, aviation English is taught either by English as a foreign language (EFL) teachers who are field specialists in the field of aviation or teachers whose major is Teaching English as a foreign language (TEFL). For the first time in Iran, the present research investigated the cognitions and attitudes of the two groups of teachers on teaching aviation English. Eight teachers were surveyed using semi-structured interview and questionnaire. The results revealed substantial inconsistencies between field specialists and TEFL instructors' attitudes. Field specialist teachers believed that aviation English should be taught practically with a focus on technical content, teacher-center education, and teacher-directed feedback. On the other hand, their TEFL counterparts contended that in such courses, the focus should mostly be on teaching methodology, participatory teaching, and peer feedback. The findings can be illuminating in better understanding of the status quo of aviation English programs in Iran and making more informed policy decisions on selecting the most qualified agents for teaching aviation courses in English for Specific Purposes.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Cognition
  • field specialists
  • TEFL teachers
  • aviation English
  • Iran
علوی، سیدمحمد؛ کیوان­پناه، شیوا و شریفی، اسداله. (1396). آسیب­شناسی کیفیت آموزش زبان انگلیسی تخصصی گردشگری در دانشگاه­های کشور. پژوهشهایزبانشناختیدرزبان‌هایخارجی،5(2)، 353-374.

Alexander, O. (2007). Groping in the dark or turning on the light: routes into teaching English for academic purposes. In T. Lynch, & J. Northcott (Eds.), Educating legal English specialists and teacher education in teaching EAP (pp. 24-32). Proceedings of IALS teacher education. Symposia, 2004 and 2006. Institute for Applied Language Studies, University of Edinburgh.

Alexander, O. (2012). Exploring teacher beliefs in teaching EAP at low proficiency levels. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11, 99–111

Alijanian, E. (2012). An investigation of Iranian EFL teachers` beliefs about grammar. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 2(3), 335-340.

Anderson, R. (2017). Parallel ESAP courses: What are they? Why do we need them? International Journal of Language Studies, 11(3), 13-30.

Anthony, L. (1997). English for Specific Purposes: What does it Mean? Why is it different? English for Specific Purposes, 16(1), 1-4.

Anthony, L. (2011). Products, processes, and practitioners: A critical look at the importance of specificity in ESP. Taiwan International ESP Journal, 3(2), 1–18.

Atai, M. R. (2002). Iranian EAP programs in practice: A study of key methodological aspects. Sheikhbahaee Research Bulletin, 1, 1–15.

Atai, M. R. (2013). English for specific purposes: International trends and middle-east concerns. In R. Akbari & C. Coombe (Eds.) Middle East handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 150–184). Dubai: The UAE, TESOL Arabia Publications.

Atai, M. R., & Fatahi-Majd, M. (2014). Exploring the practices and cognitions of Iranian ELT instructors and subject teachers in teaching EAP reading comprehension. English for Specific Purposes, 33, 27-38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2013.07.007.

Atai, M. R., & Nazari, O. (2011). Exploring reading comprehension needs of Iranian EAP students of health information management (HIM): A triangulated approach. System, 39(1),30–43.

Atai, M. R., & Shoja, L. (2011). A triangulated study of academic language needs of Iranian students of computer engineering: Are the courses on track? RELC Journal, 42(3), 305-323.

Baker, A. (2014). Exploring teachers’ knowledge of second language pronunciation techniques: teacher cognitions, observed classroom practices, and student perceptions. TESOL Quarterly, 48(1), 136-163.

Basturkmen, H. (2012). Review of research into the correspondence between language teachers' stated beliefs and practices. System, 40(2), 282-295.

Beach, S. A. (1994). Teacher’s theories and classroom practice: beliefs, knowledge, or context? Reading Psychology, 15 (3), 189−96.

Bernhardt, E. B. (2011). Understanding advanced second-language reading. London: Routledge.

Borg, S. (1999). The use of grammatical terminology in the second language classroom: A quality study of teachers' practices and cognitions. Applied Linguistics. 20(1), 95-124.

Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what Language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36, 81–109.

Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. London: Continuum.

Breen, M. P., Hird, B., Milton, M., Oliver, R., & Thwaite, A. (2003). Making sense of language teaching: teachers' principles and classroom practices. Applied Linguistics. 22(4), 470-501.

Chen, Y. (2011). The institutional turn and the crisis of ESP pedagogy in Taiwan. Taiwan International ESP Journal, 3(1), 17–30.

Crystal, D. (1997).  English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Collie, G. E. (1996). How language teachers' beliefs about reading are mediated by their beliefs about students. Foreign Language Annals, 29, 387–395.

Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. (1996). Cultures of learning: language classrooms in China. In H. Coleman (Ed.), Society and the Language Classroom (pp. 169–203). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dornyei, Z. (2003). Attitudes, orientations, and motivations in language learning: Advances in theory, research and applications. Language Learning, 53(1), 3-32.

El-Okada, M. (2005). EFL student teachers’ cognition about reading instruction. The Reading Matrix, 5, 43–60.

Farrell, T. S. C., & Benisi, K. (2013). Reflecting on ESL teacher beliefs and classroom practices: a case study. RELC Journal, 44(163), 45-65.

Farrell , T. S. C., & Lim, P. P. C. (2005). Conceptions of grammar teaching: A case study of teachers' beliefs and classroom practices. TESL-EJ. 9(2), 1-13.

Ferguson, G. (2002). Language awareness in the preparation of teachers of English for specific purposes. In H. Trappes- Lomax & G. Ferguson (Eds.), Language in language teacher education (pp. 131–148). Amsterdam: Netherland, John Benjamins.

Freeman, D. (2002). The hidden side of the work: Teacher knowledge and learning to teach. Language Teaching, 35, 1–13.

Golombek, P. R., & Johnson, K. E. (2004). Narrative inquiry as a mediational space: examining emotional and cognitive dissonance in second-language teachers’ development. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 10(3), 307–327.

Graves, K. (2008). The language curriculum: a social contextual perspective. Language Teaching, 411(2), 147–181.

Hall, G. (2011). Exploring English Language Teaching: language in Action. London: Routledge. Taylor & Francis.

Holt, R., D. (1992). Personal history-based beliefs as relevant prior knowledge in coursework. American Educational Research Journal, 29(2), 325−49.

Hyland, K. (2002). Specificity revisited: how far should we go now? English for Specific Purposes, 21(4), 385-395.

Hyland, K. (2006). English for academic purposes: An advanced resource book. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Hutchinson, T., & Waters, A. (1987). English for Specific Purposes: A learning-centered approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Johnson, K. E. (1992). The relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practices during literacy instruction for nonnative speakers of English. Journal of Reading Behavior, 24, 83–108.

Johnson, K. E. (2006). The sociocultural turn and its challenges for second language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 235–257.

Kettle, B. & Sellars, N.  (1996). The development of student teachers’ practical theory of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(1), 1−24.

Kim, D. M. (2005). Implications of research on teacher beliefs. Educational Psychologist, 27(1), 65–90.

Labov, W. (1970). The study of language in its social context. Stadium Generale, 23, 30–87.

Lai, Y. G. (2001). Task-based Language Teaching: For the State Secondary F.L Classroom? Language Learning Journal, 31(1), 55-68.

Mansour, N. (2008). Science teachers’ beliefs and practices: issues, implications and research agenda. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 4(1), 25-48.

McDonough, J., & McDonough, S. (1997). Research Methods for Language Teachers. London: Arnold.

Meijer, P. C., Verloop, N., & Beijaard, D. (2001). Similarities and differences in teachers’ practical knowledge about teaching reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Research, 94(3), 171–184.

Mullock, B. (2006). The pedagogical knowledge base of four TESOL teachers. The Modern Language Journal, 90(1), 48–66.

Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332.

Rajabi, P., Kiany, G. R & Maftoon, P. (2012). ESP in-service teacher training programs: Do they change Iranian teachers’ beliefs, classroom practices and students' achievements?  Ibérica, 24, 261-282.

Richards, C. (1998). Beyond Training. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Robinson, P. (1991). ESP today: A practitioner’s guide. New York, NY: Prentice Hall.

Sakui, D. D. & Gaies, P. (2006). English for specific purposes: teaching for perceived needs and imagined futures in the worlds of work, study and everyday life. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 133–156.

Scott-Barrett, F. (1989). How technical can you teach? Language Training, 10, 1–22.

Shulman, L. S., & Quinlan, K. M. (1996). The comparative psychology of school subjects. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.). Handbook of education psychology (pp. 399–422). New York, NY: Macmillan.

Sheikhol-Eslami, F., & Allami, H. (2012). The relation between teachers' self-beliefs of L2 learning and in-class practices. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2 (8), 1684-1692.

Stewart, T., & Perry, B. (2005). Interdisciplinary team teaching as a model for teacher development. TESL-EJ, 9(2), 1–17.

Swales, J.M. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. London: Cambridge University Press.

Tsui, A. (2003). Understanding expertise in teaching: Case studies of ESL teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Uhrig, K. (2016). English for occupational purposes: one language? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 3(2), 1-15.

Uso-Juan, E. (2006). The compensatory nature of discipline-related knowledge and English language proficiency in reading English for academic purposes. The Modern Language Journal, 90(2), 210–227.

Widdowson, H. G. (1983). Learning purpose and language use. Oxford: OUP.

Williams, R. (1978). EST – Is it on the right track? In C. J. Kennedy (Ed.) English for Specific purposes [Special issue]. MALS Journal (Midlands Applied Linguistics Association) (pp. 25–31). Birmingham, England: The University of Birmangham.