ارزیابی انتقادی دوره های زبان انگلیسی برای اهداف دانشگاهی در ایران: تحلیل محتوایی اسناد زبانی و دیدگاه های متخصصان و برنامه ریزان

نویسندگان
محمودرضا عطایی 1
ابوطالب ایرانمهر 2
عصمت بابایی 3
1 استاد گروه زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه خوارزمی، تهران، ایران
2 دانشجوی دکتری گروه زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه خوارزمی، تهران، ایران
3 دانشیار گروه زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه خوارزمی، تهران، ایران
چکیده
این مطالعه با هدف بررسی سیاست آموزش زبان انگلیسی برای اهداف دانشگاهی در ایران و اینکه تا چه حد سیاست­گذاری­ها با اجرا مطابقت دارد، انجام شده است. بدین­منظور، ابتدا سرفصل­های دروس زبان تخصصی که در سطح کلان طراحی شده­اند با روش تحلیل محتوایی اسناد مورد بررسی قرار گرفت و سپس از طریق مصاحبه، با دیدگاه­های متخصصان این حوزه هم­سو­سازی شد تا میزان انطباق بین سطوح سیاست­گذاری و اجرا مشخص شود. محورهایی از چارچوب سیاست آموزش زبان کاپلان و بالدوف (2005) به­عنوان چارچوب نظری مطالعه انتخاب شد. بررسی تحلیل محتوایی اسناد زبان تخصصی و مصاحبه با متخصصان بیانگر آن است که در برنامۀ زبان ­تخصصی در ایران اختلافاتی بین سطوح سیاست­گذاری و اجرا وجود دارد. مضاف بر آنکه این برنامه در سطح سیاست­گذاری نیز ضعف­ها و کاستی­های جدی دارد. یافته­ها بیانگر آن است که به منظور رسیدن به یک وضعیت قابل قبول در برنامۀ مذکور، نیاز مبرمی به بازنگری دوره­های زبان تخصصی در هر دو سطح سیاست­گذاری و اجرا وجود دارد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

  • دهباشی شریف فروزان و همکاران (1391). «بررسی چگونگی توسعۀ مهارت­های ارتباطی و توانش زبانی در آموزش مجازی در سطح دانشگاه­ها». جستارهای زبانی. ش 3(2). صص 85-114.

  • کیانی غلامرضا و همکاران (1390). «نگاهی دوباره به رویکرد برنامه درسی ملی نسبت به آموزش زبان­های خارجی». جستارهای زبانی. ش 2(6). صص 186-209.

    • Aghagolzadeh, F. & H. Davari (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). Amesterdam: Springer.

    • Ahmadvand, M.; H. Barati & S. Ketabi (2013). Rights analysis of ESP courses: Towards democratizing ESP education. English for Specific Purposes World, 46.Pp. 1-13.

    • Asoudar, M.; M. R. Atai; S. Vaezi & S. S. Marandi (2014). “Examining effectiveness of communities of practice in online English for academic purposes (EAP) assessment in virtual classes”. Computers & Education. 70. Pp. 291-300.

    • Atai, M.R. (2002). “ESAP curriculum development in Iran: An incoherent educational experience”. Special Issue of the Journal of Persian Literature and Human Sciences of Tehran Teacher Training University, 1(3).Pp. 17-34.

    • Atai, M.R. (2006). EAP teacher education: Searching for an effective model integrating content and language teachers’ schemes. Proceedings of PAAL Conference (pp.23-41). Kangwong National University, Chuncheon, Korea.Retreived from: http://www. paaljapan.org/resources/proceedings/ PAAL11/pdfs/03.

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

    • Atai, M.R. & F. Mazlum (2013). “English language teaching curriculum in Iran: planning and practice”, The Curriculum Journal, 24 (3). Pp. 389-411.

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

    • Baldauf Jr, R.B.; M. Li & S. Zhao (2008). Language acquisition management inside and outside the school, In B. Spolsky & F.M. Hult (Eds.) The handbook of educational linguistics (Pp. 233-250). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

    • Belcher, D.D. (2006). “English for specific purposes: Teaching to perceived needs and imagined futures in worlds of work, study, and everyday life”. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1). Pp.133-156.

    • Benesch, S. (2001). Critical English for academic purposes: Theory, politics, and practice. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    • Bool, H.; D. Dunmore; A. Tonkyn; D. Schmitt & M. Ward Goodbody (2003). The BALEAP guidelines on English language proficiency levels for international applicants to UK universities. London: British Association of Lecturers in English for Academic Purposes.

    • Borg, S. (2003). “Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do”. Language Teaching, 36(2).Pp. 81-109.

    • Bowen, G.A. (2008). Naturalistic inquiry and the saturation concept: a research note. Qualitative Research, 8(1).Pp. 137-152.

    • Campion, G. (2012). ‘The learning never ends’ Investigating teachers’ experiences of moving from English for general purposes to English for academic purposes in the UK context; What are the main challenges associated with beginning to teach EAP, and how can these challenges be overcome?(Unpublished M.A thesis). The University of Nottingham.

    • Dahbi, M. (2017). A call for English teachers in Morocco to practice agency through action research. In P.C.L. Ng, & E.F. Boucher-Yip (Eds.) Teacher Agency and Policy Response in English Language Teaching (Pp. 148-159). London: Routledge.

    • Dashtestani, R. (2016). “The effect of SMS-based L1 and L2 glosses on EAP students’ academic vocabulary learning and attitudes”. Journal of Teaching English for Specific and Academic Purposes, 3(3). Pp. 521-537.

    • Davari, H. & F. Aghagolzadeh (2015). “To teach or not to teach? Still an open question for the Iranian education system”. In C. Kennedy (Ed.) English Language Teaching in the Islamic Republic of Iran, Innovations Trends and Challenges. (Pp.13-19). London: British Council.

    • Dehbashi Sharif, F. et al. (2012). “Familiarity of foreign language faculties with E- teaching as an effective step in the development of communicative skills and linguistic competence”. Language Related Research. Vol. 3, No. 2. Pp 85- 114. [In Persian].

    • Ding, A. & G. Campion (2016). EAP Teacher Development. In K. Hyland, & P. Shaw (Eds.). The Routledge Handbook of English for Academic Purposes. (Pp.547-559), London: Routledge.

    • Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research Methods in Applied Linguistics: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    • Farhady, H. (2005). Reflections on and directions for ESP materials development in SAMT. In Proceedings of the First National ESP/EAP Conference (Vol. 3) (Pp. 2-32), Tehran, Iran.

    • Farhady, H. & H. Hedayati (2009). “Language assessment policy in Iran”. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 29. Pp. 132-141.

    • Hammond, M. & J. Wellington (2013). Research methods: the key concepts. London: Routledge.

    • Hayati, A.M. (2008). “Teaching English for special purposes in Iran: Problems and suggestions”. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 7.Pp.149-165.

    • Hutchinson, T., & A. Waters (2001). English for Specific Purposes: A Learning-Centered Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    • Hyland, K. (2006). English for Academic Purposes: An Advanced Resource Book. London: Routledge.

    • Kaplan, R.B. & R.B. Baldauf Jr (2005). Language-in-education policy and planning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.) Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Pp. 1013-1034), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    • Khany, R. & H. Tarlani-Aliabadi (2016). “Studying power relations in an academic setting: Teachers' and students' perceptions of EAP classes in Iran”. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 21. Pp. 72-85.

    • Kiyani, Gh. et al. (2012). “Revisiting the approach of national curriculum towards foreign Language education”. Language Related Research. Vol. 2, No. 2 . Pp 186- 209. [In Persian].

    • Mazdayasna, G. & M. H. Tahririan (2008). “Developing a profile of the ESP needs of Iranian students: The case of students of nursing and midwifery”. Journal of English for Academic purposes, 7(4). Pp. 277-289.

    • Mazraehno, F.T. & G. Mazdayasna (2016). “Developing ESAP materials: A case of graduate students of Islamic Jurisprudence”. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 13(1). Pp. 82-111.

    • Mirhosseini, S.A. & S. Khodakarami (2015). A glimpse of contrasting de jure–de facto ELT policies in Iran. In C. Kennedy (Ed.) English Language Teaching in The Islamic Republic of Iran: Innovations, trends and challenges. (Pp.23-34). London: British Council.

    • Mirhosseini, S.A. & S. Khodakarami (2016). “Aspects of ‘English language education’ policies in Iran: ‘Our own beliefs’ or ‘out of who you are’”? Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 11(3). Pp. 283-299.

    • Mirza-Suzani, S.M.; L. Yarmohammadi & M. Yamini (2011). “A critical review of the current situation of teaching ESP in the Iranian higher education institutions”. The Iranian EFL Journal, 36(3). Pp. 179-204.

    • Salas, S.; L.A. Mercado; L.H. Ouedraogo & B. Musetti (2013). “English for specific purposes: Negotiating needs, possibilities, and promises”. English Teaching Forum, 51(4). Pp. 12-19.

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

    • Spolsky, B. (2009). Language management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    • Stoller, F.L. (2016). EAP materials and tasks. In K. Hyland, & P. Shaw (Eds.) The Routledge handbook of English for academic purposes (Pp. 577-591). London: Routledge.

    • Taherkhani, R. (2016). Exploring Iranian EAP teachers’ cognitions, State of Collaboration, Methodologies, Materials Production, and Assessment Practices (Unpublished PhD dissertation), Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran.

    • Tavakkoli, M.; N. Nasri & M. Rezazadeh (2013). “Applying strategies for dealing with lack of subject knowledge: Can language teachers be effective ESP teachers?”. English for Specific Purposes World, 37(13). Pp. 1-14.




 

جستارهای زبانی
دوره 8، شماره 6
بهمن و اسفند 1396
صفحه 161-189