Teachers’ Reflections on the Practicality of English In-Service Courses in Iran

Somayeh Baniasad-Azad, Mansoor Tavakoli, Saeed Ketabi

Abstract


As professional development is essential for teacher quality, many countries have made investments in designing teacher education programs. The study explores the efficacy of in-service courses in Iran from the perspective of English language teachers. Interviews were conducted to examine teachers’ beliefs about the efficacy of in-service courses, their involvement in program development, the application of program material by teachers, and their preferences about teacher education programs. The findings showed that program designers adopted a traditional transmissive model to transfer pre-determined knowledge to the teachers without involving teachers in the decision making process. Teachers, in turn, did not apply the program materials in their teaching practices because they believed program materials were idealistic, impractical, generalized, and decontextualized. Moreover, what teachers considered beneficial for their development was different from what was presented to them in the in-service courses. The reason for such inconsistencies is a lack of communication and effective feedback channel between teachers and planners. The findings suggest that as teachers are the final decision makers based on the realities of their teaching situation, involving them in planning and program development process can decrease the existing gap and make program materials more realistic and consequently applicable. Implications for language planning and teacher education programs are discussed.

 

Keywords: English language education; professional development; teacher involvement; in-service courses; teacher autonomy


Full Text:

PDF

References


Ahn, K. (2011). Learning to teach under curricula reform: The practicum experience in South Korea. In K.E Johnson & P.R. Golombek (Eds.), Research on Second Language Teacher Education: a Sociocultural Perspective on Professional Development (pp. 239-254). New York: Taylor & Francis.

Allwright, R. L. (2003). Exploratory Practice: Rethinking practitioner research in language teaching. Language Teaching Research. Vol. 7, 113-141.

Atai, M. R. & Mazlum, F. (2013). English language teaching curriculum in Iran: Planning and practice. The Curriculum Journal. Vol. 24 (3), 389-411. DOI:10.1080/09585176.2012.744327

Barrot, J. S. (2016). Examining the teaching beliefs and practices of experienced ESL teachers: A sociocognitive-transformative perspective. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies. Vol. 22(1), 153-163. DOI: http://doi.org/10.17576/3L-2016-2201-12

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

Canagarajah, S. A. (2005). Introduction. In S. A. Canagarajah (Ed.), Reclaiming the Local in Language Policy and Practice (pp. xiii-xxx). Mahwah, N. J.: Erlbaum.

Davies, A. (2002). The social component of language teacher education. In H. Trappes-Lomax & G. Ferguson, Language in Language Teacher Education (pp. 49-67). Netherlands: John Benjamin Publishing.

Dunn, W. (2011). Working toward social inclusion through concept development in second language teacher education. In K.E Johnson &

P.R. Golombek (Eds.), Research on Second Language Teacher Education: A Sociocultural Perspective on Professional Development (pp. 50-65). New York: Taylor & Francis.

Freeman, R. D. (1996). Dual-language planning at Oyster Bilingual School: “It’s much more than language”. TESOL Quarterly, 30 (3), 557-582.

Hashim, N.M.H.N., Alam, S. Sh. & Yusoff, N.M. (2014). Relationship between teacher’s personality, monitoring, learning environment, and students’ EFL performance. GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies. Vol. 14 (1), 101-116. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/GEMA-2014-

-07

Hatch, J.A. (2002). Doing Qualitative Research in Education Settings. New York: State University of New York Press.

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

Hu, G. (2005). Contextual influences on instructional practices: A Chinese case for an ecological approach to ELT. TESOL Quarterly. Vol. 39(4), 635-660.

Jacobs, G. & Farrell, T.S.C. (2001). Paradigm shift: Understanding and implementing change in second language education. TESL EJ. Vol. 5(1).

Jahangard, A. (2007). Evaluation of the EFL materials taught at Iranian high schools. The Asian EFL Journal. Vol. 9(2), 130-50.

Johnson, K. E. (2009). Second Language Teacher Education: A Sociocultural Perspective. New York: Taylor & Francis.

Johnson, K. E. & Golombek, P. R. (2011). Research on Second Language Teacher Education: A Sociocultural Perspective on Professional Development. New York: Taylor & Francis.

Kiany, Gh., Mirhosseini, A. & Navidinia, H. (2011). Foreign language education policies in Iran: Pivotal macro considerations. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning. Vol. 53(222), 49-70.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding Language Teaching: From Method to Postmethod. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Lee, I. (2011). Teachers as presenters at continuing professional development seminars in the English-as-a-foreign-language context: ‘I find it more convincing’. Australian Journal of Teacher Education. Vol. 36(2). http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2011v36n2.3

Li, M. (2010). EFL teachers and English language education in the PRC: Are they the policy makers? The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher. Vol. 19(3), 439-451.

Little, D. (1995).Learning as dialogue: The dependence of learner autonomy on teacher autonomy. System. Vol. 23(2), 175-182.

Lodico, M.G., Spaulding, D.T. & Voegtle, K.H. (2006). Methods in Educational Research: From Theory to Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Morris, K. A. & Easterday, J. (2008). Amplifying autonomy and collective conversation: Using video iPods™ to support mathematics teacher learning. Issues in Teacher Education. Vol. 17(2), 47.

Pishghadam, R. & Saboori, F. (2014). A socio-cultural study of language teacher status. International Journal of Society, Culture & Language. Vol. 2(1), 63-72.

Quiocho, A. & Stall, P. (2008). Nclb and teacher satisfaction. Leadership. Vol. 37(5), 20-24.

Reagan, T. G. & Osborn, T. A. (2002). The Foreign Language Educator in Society: Toward a Critical Pedagogy. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Riazi, A. (2005). The four language stages in the history of Iran. In A.M.Y. Lin & P.W. Martin (Eds.), Decolonization, Globalization: Language-in-education Policy and Practice (pp. 98-114). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Riazi, A. & N. Mosalanejad. (2010). Evaluation of learning objectives in Iranian high school and pre-university English textbooks using Bloom’s taxonomy. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language. Vol. 13 (4), 1-16.

Richards, J. C. (2002). 30 years of TEFL/TESL: A personal reflection. RELC Journal. Vol. 33(1), 1-35, doi:10.1177/003368820203300201.

Richardson, V. (1997). Constructivist teaching and teacher education: Theory and practice. In V. Richardson (Eds.), Constructivist Teacher Education: Building New Understandings (pp. 3-15). London: The Falmer Press.

Stern, H. H. (1992). Issues and Options in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tarone, E. & Allwright, D. (2005). Second language teacher learning and student second language learning: shaping the knowledge base. In D. J. Tedick (Eds.), Second Language Teacher Education: International Perspectives (pp. 5-25). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Tedick, D. J. (2005). Second language teacher education: International perspectives. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Ur, P. (2013). Language-teaching method revisited. ELT Journal. Vol. 6(4), 468-474.

Waters, A. (2012). Trends and issues in ELT methods and methodology. ELT Journal. Vol. 66(4), 9-440.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/3L-2017-2303-07

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


 

 

 

eISSN : 2550-2247

ISSN : 0128-5157