محتوای آموزشی دوره های آموزش زبان با اهداف خاص کانون زبان ایران: ارزیابی سطوح کلان، میانی، و خرد

نوع مقاله: علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استاد تمام آموزش زبان انگلیسی/ دانشگاه خوارزمی تهران

2 دانشیار رشته آموزش زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه خوارزمی، تهران، ایران

3 دانشجوی دکتری تخصصی رشته آموزش زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه خوارزمی، تهران، ایران

چکیده

موفقیت یک دورۀ آموزشی مستلزم نیازسنجی، به روزرسانی مستمر و همچنین حصول اطمینان از درک متقابل و همسوی افراد ذینفع در سطوح کلان، میانی و خرد از جنبه‌های مختلف آموزشی آن دوره است. در این پژوهش، برای فراهم سازی بایسته های بازنگری و رفع اشکالات احتمالی دوره‌های نوپای آموزش زبان با اهداف خاص کانون زبان ایران صورت گرفته است. در این پژوهش که بخشی از یک برنامۀ پژوهشی گسترده است، با بهره گیری از پرسشنامه و مصاحبه‌های کیفی نیمه-ساختارمند استوار بر چارچوب نظری بالدف و کپلان (2005)، نظرات افراد در سطوح کلان، میانی و خرد کانون زبان ایران در زمینۀ محتوای آموزشی دوره‌های آموزش زبان با اهداف ویژۀ کانون زبان ایران بررسی و نتایج با بهره گیری از تحلیل محتوا و آمار توصیفی به صورت کیفی و کمی گزارش شده است. بررسی نتایج پژوهش موجود نشان از تفاوت و گاه تناقض برداشت افراد در سطوح مختلف دارد که پرداختن به آن می‌تواند نقطۀ شروع مناسبی برای بازبینی و به روزرسانی دوره‌ها باشد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

The Educational Content of the ESP Curriculum at Iran Language Institute: reappraisal at policy, planning, and practice levels

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mahmood Reza Atai 1
  • Esmat Babai 2
  • Mohammad Shahin Taghaddomi 3
1 Full Professor of TEFL/ Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran
2 Associate Professor of TEFL/ Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran
3 PhD Student of TEFL/ Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

The literature on curriculum evaluation and renewal indicates that the success of a given curriculum depends largely on the extent to which all stakeholders develop and share similar understanding of different aspects of that curriculum. The importance of evaluation and renewal is doubled when it comes to English for Specific Purposes (ESP) which is by definition a needs-oriented movement. As such, the present study, which is a part of a larger study, shed light on the Iran Language Institute ESP stakeholders' perceptions as to the educational content of the programs. In so doing, semi-structured qualitative interview and questionnaire were employed to probe the stakeholders' perceptions regarding the educational content. Descriptive statistics and content analysis were employed to analyze the data. The results indicated that there were different, and at times contradictory, perceptions with regard to the educational content. The findings of this study might be considered a starting point for the ILI ESP curriculum renewal.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • English for Specific purposes
  • Iran Language Institute
  • Curriculum Evaluation
  • Curriculum Renewal
  • Shared Understanding
صیامیان گرجی، زهیر. (1395). کانون زبان ایران در گذر زمان: پیشگام بومی سازی آموزش زبان‌های خارجی. تهران: کانون زبان ایران.

Aghagolzadeh, F., & Davari, H. (2017). English education in Iran: From ambivalent policies to paradoxical practices. In R. Kirkpatrick (Ed.), English language education policy in the Middle East and North Africa (pp. 47-62). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

Alderson, C. (2009). Air safety, language assessment policy, and policy implementation. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 29, 168- 87.

Alexander, O (2012). Exploring teacher beliefs in teaching EAP at low proficiency levels. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(2), 99-111.

Ary, D., Jacobs, L., Sorensen, C. & Walker, D. (2013). Introduction to Research inEducation (9th Edition). Belmont, CA: Cengage.

Atai, M. R. & Dashtestani, R. (2013). Iranian EAP stakeholders’ attitudes towards using the Internet in EAP courses for civil engineering students: Promises and challenges. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26(1), 21-38.

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

Baldauf, R. B. Jr. (2002). Methodologies for policy and planning. In R. B. Kaplan (Ed.), Handbook of Applied Linguistics (pp. 391-403). Oxford: OUP.

Baldauf Jr. B., Li, M.,& Zhao, S. (2008): Language Acquisition Management Inside and Outside the School (233-250). In B. Spolsky and F. M. Hult (Eds.), The handbook of educational linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Basturkmen, H. (2010). Developing courses in English for specific purposes. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Bernard, R. & Zemach, D. (2003). Materials for specific purposes. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.),Developing materials for language teaching (pp.306-323). London: Continuum.

Blumberg, R. L. (2007). Gender bias in textbooks: A hidden obstacle on the road to gender equality in education. Paris: UNESCO.

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.

Borg, S. (2012). Current approaches to language teacher cognition research: A methodological analysis. In R. Barnard, and A. Burns (Eds.), Researching language teacher cognition and practice: International case studies (pp. 11-29). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Caplan, N. A. & Stevens, S. G. (2017). “Step Out of the Cycle”: Needs, challenges, and successes of international undergraduates at a U.S. University. English for Specific Purposes, 46, 15-28.

Chun, S. Y. (2014). EFL learners' beliefs about native and non-native English-speaking teachers: Perceived strengths, weaknesses, and preferences. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 35(6), 563-579.

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th Ed.). New York: Pearson.

Dahmardeh, M. (2009). English Language Teaching in Iran and Communicative Language Teaching (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.

Dudley-Evans, T., & St. John, M. J. (1998). Developments in English for specific purposes: A multi-disciplinary approach. Cambridge: CUP.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Farhady, H., SajadiHezaveh, F., & Hedayati, H. (2010). Reflections on foreign language education in Iran. TESL-EJ, 13(4), 1-18.

Ferguson, G. (2006). Language planning in education. Edinburg: Edinburg University.

Flowerdew, L. (2013). Needs analysis and curriculum development in ESP. In B. Paltridge & S. Starfield (Eds.), The handbook of English for specific purposes (pp. 325-347). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.

Gabillon, Z. (2012). Discrepancies between L2 teacher and L2 learner beliefs. English Language Teaching, 5(12), 94-99.

Gea-Valor, M. L., Rey-Rocha, J., & Moreno, A. I. (2014). Publishing research in the international context: An analysis of Spanish scholars’ academic writing needs in the social sciences. English for Specific Purposes, 36, 47-59.

Glatthorn, A. A., Boschee, F., & Whitehead, B. M. (2006). Curriculum leadership: Development and implementation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Hewings, M. (2001). A history of ESP through English for Specific Purposes. Accessed March 2, 2011 from http://www.esp - world.info/Articles_3/Hewings_paper.htm.

Hutchison, T., & Waters, A. (1987). English for Specific Purposes: A learning-centered approach. Cambridge: CUP.

Hayati, A. M., & Mashhadi, A. (2010). Language planning and language-in-education policy in Iran. Language Problems and Language Planning, 34(1), 24-42.

Hill, D. A. (2003). The visual element in EFL coursebooks. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.). Developing materials for language teaching (pp. 174-182). London: Continuum.

Honna, N. & Takeshita, Y. (2005). English language teaching in Japan: Policy plans and their implementation. RELC Journal, 36, 363-83.

Hu, B., & Tian, L. (2012). Do teachers and students share similar beliefs about teaching and learning strategies? System, 40(2), 237-254.

Hyland, K. (2006). English for academic purposes. London: Routledge.

Iranmehr, A. (2017). A Critical Evaluation of Iranian EAP Programs from ‘Language-in Education Planning’ Perspective (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran.

Johnson, D. C. (2009). Ethnography of language policy. Language Policy, 8, 139-159.

Johnson, R. K. (1989). The second language curriculum. Cambridge: CUP.

Kiani, G., Shayestefar, p., Momenian, M., & Moradkhani, S (2010). Unveiling the blind spots: (Un)stated policies in English language education in Iran. Paper presented at the first international conference of ELT in the Islamic world, Tehran, Iran.

Kırkgoz, Y. (2009). Globalization and English language policy in Turkey. Educational Policy 23(5), 663-84.

Lambert, D. R. (2001). Adult use and language choice in foreign language policy. In R. L. Cooper, E. Shohamy, and J. Walters (Eds.), New perspectives and issues in educational language policy: In honour of Bernard Dov Spolsky, (pp. 171–196). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Mashuhara, H. (2011). What do teachers really want from coursebooks? In B. Tomlinson (Ed.). Materials development in language teaching (2nd Ed.) (pp. 236-266). Cambridge: CUP.

Mazlum, F. (2012). English Language Policy, Planning, and Practice in Iran (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran.

Perry, J. R. (1999). Comparative Perspectives on Language Planning in Iran and Tajikistan. In Y. Suleiman (Ed.), Language and Society in the Middle East and North Africa: Studies in Variation and Identity (pp. 154-74). Padstow, Cornwall, Great Britain: TJ International.

Peters, P. &Fernández, T. (2013). The lexical needs of ESP students in a professional field. English for Specific Purposes, 32, 236-247.

Prior, P. (2013). Multidimensionality and ESP research. In B. Paltridge & S. Starfield (Eds.). The handbook of English for specific purposes (pp. 519-534). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.

Riazi, A. M. (2003). What textbook evaluation schemes tell us? A study of the textbook evaluation schemes of three decades. In W. A. Renandya. (Ed.), Methodology and materials design in language teaching (pp. 52-68). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Center.

Sadeghi, A. A. (2001). Language planning in Iran: A historical review. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 123, 7-22.

Sheldon, L. (1988). Evaluating ELT textbooks and materials. ELT Journal, 37, 237-246.

Shohamy, E. (2006). Language policy: hidden agendas and new approaches. London: Routledge.

SoodmandAfshar, H. & Movassagh, H. (2016). EAP education in Iran: Where does the problem lie? Where are we heading? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 22, 132-151.

Spence, P. & Liu, G. Z. (2013). Engineering English and the high-tech industry: A case study of an English needs analysis of process integration engineers at a semiconductor manufacturing company in Taiwan. English for Specific Purposes, 32, 97-109.

Spolsky, B. & Shohamy, E. (2000). Language practice, language ideology and language policy. In R. D. Lambert & E. Shohamy (Eds.), Language Policy and Pedagogy: Essays in Honour of A. Ronald Walton (pp. 1-42). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Tollefson, J. W. (2002). Limitations of language policy and planning. In R. Kaplan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 415-423). New York: OUP.

Tomlinson, B. (2003). Humanizing the coursebook. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Developing materials for language teaching (pp. 162-173). Cambridge: CUP.

Wozniak, S. (2010). Language needs analysis from a perspective of international professional mobility: The case of French mountain guides. English for Specific Purposes, 29, 243-252.

Zhou, A. A., Busch, M., & Cumming, A. (2014). Do adult ESL learners' and their teachers' goals for improving grammar in writing correspond? Language Awareness, 23(3), 234-254.