Iranian EFL Teachers’ Sense-Making of Policy Reforms: The Case of the New Communicative-Based Curriculum

Document Type: Research Paper

Author

Salman Farsi University of Kazerun

Abstract

By the end of the 2020s, a change involving the substitution of the Communicative Approach to English teaching for the Structural one has been fully operative in the Iranian secondary education system. This study set out to explore the views of Iranian teachers vis-a-vis the changes introduced into the education policy of the nation since teachers as end-point policy workers play a pivotal role in the ultimate success or failure of any curricular activity. Using data from semi-structured interviews and follow-up procedures, the investigation sought to delve into how eighteen EFL teachers at the upper secondary education level made sense of changes effected at the intersection of policy and practice. Common patterns and themes were identified and presented at the level of data analysis. Despite embracing the changes, the results showed that the teachers sensed that they had been left to their own devices in translating policy into practice and that the proposed reforms were not all-inclusive in the sense that significant stakeholders including parents, school counselors, and educational leaders had been left out. They were further keenly aware of a number of obstacles in the way of policy enactment and found especially the prevalence of a regime of cramming for tests leading to the dominance of a negative teach-to-the-test culture, limited support available and infrastructural challenges, as well as resistance to change among structurally-minded practitioners as highly detrimental to implementation of change. Implications for policy, practice, and research are finally given.

Keywords


Atai, M. R., & Mazlum, F. (2013). English language teaching curriculum in Iran: Planning and practice. The Curriculum Journal, 24(3), 389-411.
Ball, S. J. (1994). Education reform. London: McGraw-Hill Education.
Barabadi, E., & Razmjoo, S. A. (2016). The Emergence of Various Contradictions in Iranian High School English Education under the New CLT-Based Curriculum. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 35(3), 41-64.
Barabadi, E., & Razmjoo, S. A. (2015). An activity theory analysis of ELT reform in Iranian public schools. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18(1), 127-166.
Bascia, N., Cumming, A., Datnow, A., Leithwood, K., & Livingstone, D. (2005). International handbook of educational policy. Springer.
Bernstein, B. (2004). The structuring of pedagogic discourse. Routledge.
Bosker, R. J., Creemers, B. P., & Stringfield, S. (Eds.). (2012). Enhancing educational excellence, equity, and efficiency: Evidence from evaluations of systems and schools in change. Springer Science & Business Media.
Carless, D. (2004). Issues in teachers' reinterpretation of a task‐based innovation in primary schools. Tesol Quarterly, 38(4), 639-662.
Carless, D. (2002). Implementing task‐based learning with young learners. ELT Journal, 56(4), 389-396.
Carless, D. R. (1998). A case study of curriculum implementation in Hong Kong. System, 26(3), 353-368.
Chin, R. & K. Benne (1970). General strategies for effecting changes in human systems. In W. Bennis, K. D. Benne, & R. Chin (Eds.), The planning of change (pp. 32-59). London: Holt, Rinehart& Winston.
Creswell, J. W. (2011). Educational research: Planning, Conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Boston: Pearson.
Datnow, A., Borman, G. D., Stringfield, S., Overman, L. T., & Castellano, M. (2003). Comprehensive school reform in culturally and linguistically diverse contexts: Implementation and outcomes from a four-year study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 143–170.
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford University Press.
Eisner, E. W. (1996). Cognition and curriculum reconsidered. SAGE.
Ezzy, D. (2013). Qualitative analysis. London: Routledge.
Fenwick, T., & Edwards, R. (2010). Actor-network theory in education. Oxon: Routledge.
Henry, M., Lingard, B., Rizvi, F., & Taylor, S. (2013). Educational policy and the politics of change. Routledge.
Honig, M. I. (2009). What works in defining “what works” in educational improvement: Lessons from educational policy implementation research. Directions for future research. In G. Sykes, B. Schneider, & D. N. Plank (Eds.). Handbook of educational policy research. (pp. 333-347).  New York: Routledge.
Honig, M. I. (Ed.). (2006). New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity. Suny Press.
Humphries, S., & Burns, A. (2015). ‘In reality, it is almost impossible': CLT-oriented curriculum change. ELT Journal, 69(3), 239-248.
Hyland, K., & Wong, L. L. (Eds.). (2013). Innovation and change in English language education. Routledge.
Jabbar, H. (2015). “Every kid is money”: Market-like competition and school leader strategies in New Orleans. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(4), 638–659.
Jones, T. (2013). Understanding education policy: The ‘four education orientations’ framework. Springer Science & Business Media.
Karavas‐Doukas, E. (1995). Teacher identified factors affecting the implementation of an EFL innovation in Greek public secondary schools. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 8(1), 53-68.
Kelly, A. V. (2009). The curriculum: Theory and practice. London: Sage.
Kennedy, C. (1988). Evaluation of the management of change in ELT projects. Applied Linguistics, 9(4), 329-342.
Kennedy, C. (1987). Innovating for a change. ELT Journal (41)3, 163–170.
Kennedy, C., & Kennedy, J. (1996). Teacher attitudes and change implementation. System, 24(3), 351-360.
Kirkgöz, Y. (2007). English language teaching in Turkey: Policy changes and their implementations. RELC Journal, 38(2), 216-228.
Le Fevre, D. M. (2014). Barriers to implementing pedagogical change: The role of teachers' perceptions of risk. Teaching and teacher education, 38, 56-64.
Leithwood, K. (2005). Accountable schools and the leadership they need. In N. Bascia, A. Cumming, A. Datnow, K. Leithwood, & D. Livingstone, D. (Eds.). International handbook of educational policy. (439-465). Springer.
Lochmiller, C. R., & Hedges, S. L. (2017). Education Policy Implementation Research: A Call for New Approaches. In J. N. Lester, C. R. Lochmiller, & R.E. Gabriel (Eds.).Discursive Perspectives on Education Policy and Implementation (pp. 17-40). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
Molina, S. Ch. (2017). English Language Teaching in China: Teacher agency in response to curricular innovations. In P. C. L. Ng & E. F. Boucher-Yip (Eds.), Teacher Agency and Policy Response in English Language Teaching. (pp. 7-25). Routledge.
Olssen, M., Codd, J. A., & O'Neill, A. M. (2004). Education policy: Globalization, citizenship, and democracy. Sage.
Ozga, J. (1999). Policy research in educational settings: Contested terrain. London: McGraw-Hill Education.
Orafi, S. M. S., & Borg, S. (2009). Intentions and realities in implementing communicative curriculum reform. System, 37(2), 243-253.
Pease-Alvarez, L., & Samway, K. D. (2012). Teachers of English learners negotiating authoritarian policies. London: Springer Science & Business Media.
Prapaisit de Segovia, L., & Hardison, D. M. (2008). Implementing education reform: EFL teachers’ perspectives. ELT Journal, 63(2), 154-162.
Rasti, A. & Sahragard, R. (2017). Making sense of EFL teacher agency: Insights from an Iran case study.  Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 9(19), 145-169.
Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2009). Globalizing education policy. Routledge.
Rogers, E. M. (2010). Diffusion of innovations. Simon and Schuster.
Rudduck, J. (1987). Understanding curriculum change. The University of Sheffield, Division of Education.
Sergeant, S. (2001). CALL innovation in the ELT curriculum. In D. Hall and A. Hewings. (Eds.), Innovation in English Language Teaching: A Reader (pp. 240-252). London: Routledge.
Sipple, J. W., Killeen, K., & Monk, D. H. (2004). Adoption and adaptation: School district responses to state-imposed learning and graduation requirements. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(2), 143–168.
Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of educational research, 72(3), 387-431.
Taylor, M. W. (2013). Replacing the ‘teacher-proof’ curriculum with the ‘curriculum-proof’ teacher: Toward more effective interactions with mathematics textbooks. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45(3), 295-321.
Tuytens, M., & Devos, G. (2009). Teachers' perception of the new teacher evaluation policy: A validity study of the Policy Characteristics Scale. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(6), 924-930.
Yan, C. (2012). ‘We can only change in a small way’: A study of secondary English teachers’ implementation of curriculum reform in China. Journal of Educational Change, 13(4), 431-447.