No abstract

The present study investigates English language teaching (ELT) curriculum planning in Iran%s Ministry of Education and its implementation by teachers. We studied programme evaluation; needs analysis; the ELT‐specific documents; communication channels between planning and practice levels; teacher evaluation and student assessment; interpretation and re‐examination of national policies within the Ministry; and the criteria set for ELT material development. Instrumentation included: curriculum documents; interviews with Ministry officials, material developers and headteachers; and teacher questionnaires. Results attested to the lack of any ELT‐specific document for material development and absence of research‐based needs assessment as the foundation of the programmes. Also, there are no pre‐defined linguistic and professional criteria for evaluating teachers, and planning for students' assessment is limited to a set of general guidelines. Moreover, there is neither a programme evaluation nor an ELT evaluation model and national‐level policies are not re‐examined at planning level. Results also indicate that politico‐ideological beliefs of material developers are as important as their expertise and communication channels between planning and practice levels are of a top‐down nature. It is argued that the gap between planning and practice results from a highly centralised policymaking process in which local policymakers (i.e. teachers) are not involved.

Even though English for Specific Academic Purposes (ESAP) courses constitute a significant part of the Iranian university curriculum, curriculum developers have generally developed the programs based on intuition. This study assessed the present and target situation academic language needs of undergraduate students of computer engineering. To this end, data were elicited from 231 undergraduates, 30 graduate students, 20 computer engineering instructors and 15 ESP instructors at three major Iranian universities. Instrumentation included needs analysis and self-assessment questionnaires, a general English proficiency test, semi-structured interviews, and non-participant observations. Despite some inconsistencies in participants’ perceptions of target situation needs, the findings indicate that written skills and language components are important. The undergraduates perceived difficulties with some sub-skills of reading, writing, speaking, and listening. Moreover, General English Proficiency (GEP) level of the students, as probed by a GEP test and confirmed by self assessment results and teacher assessment data, was generally low. The undergraduates held that they need more general English than highly specific academic English. Finally, participants commented on several major problematic areas. The findings may promise implications for renewing the ESAP course under study and suggest a model framework for needs assessment to other EASP researchers worldwide.

No abstract

No abstract