دانشگاه الزهرا

  اخبار و اعلانات

 آمار

تعداد نشریات25
تعداد شماره‌ها932
تعداد مقالات7,652
تعداد مشاهده مقاله12,494,807
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله8,886,306
Shahi, Reza, Khany, Reza, Shoja, Leila. (1402). ELT Curriculum and Policy: A Systematic Review of the Recent Research Literature. جلوه هنر, 7(2), 83-117. doi: 10.22051/lghor.2022.37998.1573
Reza Shahi; Reza Khany; Leila Shoja. "ELT Curriculum and Policy: A Systematic Review of the Recent Research Literature". جلوه هنر, 7, 2, 1402, 83-117. doi: 10.22051/lghor.2022.37998.1573
Shahi, Reza, Khany, Reza, Shoja, Leila. (1402). 'ELT Curriculum and Policy: A Systematic Review of the Recent Research Literature', جلوه هنر, 7(2), pp. 83-117. doi: 10.22051/lghor.2022.37998.1573
Shahi, Reza, Khany, Reza, Shoja, Leila. ELT Curriculum and Policy: A Systematic Review of the Recent Research Literature. جلوه هنر, 1402; 7(2): 83-117. doi: 10.22051/lghor.2022.37998.1573

ELT Curriculum and Policy: A Systematic Review of the Recent Research Literature

Journal of Language Horizons
مقاله 4، دوره 7، شماره 2 - شماره پیاپی 16، آذر 2023، صفحه 83-117    اصل مقاله (451 K)
نوع مقاله: Research article
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22051/lghor.2022.37998.1573
نویسندگان
Reza Shahi1؛ Reza Khany* 2؛ Leila Shoja3
1PhD Candidate, Ilam University, Ilam , Iran
2Associate Professor, Ilam University, Iran.
3Assistant professor, Ilam University, Ilam, Iran
چکیده
This study was conducted to systematically review the English Language Teaching (ELT) curriculum and policy studies. A systematic literature review was utilized to describe the features, trends, and patterns of ELT curriculum and policy studies through the Preferred Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Seventy-three empirical articles published between 2010 and 2020 were analyzed based on geographical region, research methodology, participants, and research focus. Results revealed that most of the reviewed studies (58.90%, n=43) were conducted between 2016 and 2020, whereas about 41.1 % (n=30) of the reviewed studies were carried out between 2010 and 2015. Moreover, about 68.49% of the reviewed studies employed a qualitative research design, followed by a mixed-method (about 24.65%), whereas only about 6.86% used a quantitative research methodology. Results showed that most of the studies targeted ELT policy and curriculum in Asia (54.79%), followed by Europe (20.55%), America (13.70%), and Africa (6.84 %). Furthermore, 4.10 % of the studies examined ELT curriculum and policy globally. Thirty-four ELT policy and curriculum studies focused on teachers, three articles focused on learners, and only two papers targeted other participants. Findings showed that it would be difficult to discern a strong pattern in the ELT curriculum and policy studies since they targeted various issues. The majority of the reports were small-scale qualitative studies conducted in Asian countries; therefore, to address the issue of generalizability in ELT, more extensive quantitative studies in different geographical areas are needed.
کلیدواژه‌ها
ELT policy؛ curriculum planning/practice؛ language policy؛ curriculum policy؛ systematic review
عنوان مقاله [English]
برنامه درسی و سیاست های آموزشی زبان انگلیسی : یک مطالعه ی مروری سیستماتیک بر مطالعات اخیر
نویسندگان [English]
رضا شاهی1؛ رضا خانی2؛ لیلا شجاع3
1دانشجوی دکتری، دانشگاه ایلام، ایلام، ایران.
2دانشیار، دانشگاه ایلام، ایران
3استادیار، دانشگاه ایلام، ایلام، ایران
چکیده [English]
این مطالعه با هدف بررسی سیستماتیک مطالعات برنامه درسی آموزش زبان انگلیسی (ELT) انجام شد. مرور نظام مند ادبیات برای توصیف ویژگی‌ها، گرایش‌ها و الگوهای مطالعات پژوهشی برنامه درسی و خط‌ مشی‌های آن از طریق دستورالعمل‌های پریزما؛ موارد ترجیحی در مقالات مروری نظام مند و فراتحلیل استفاده شد. هفتاد و سه مقاله تجربی منتشر شده بین سال‌های 2010 و 2020 بر اساس منطقه جغرافیایی ، شرکت ‌کنندگان،  انواع روش‌های تحقیق و اهداف مطالعات مورد تجزیه و تحلیل قرار گرفت. نتایج نشان داد که اکثر مطالعات بررسی شده (90/58 % ) بین سال‌های 2016 تا 2020 انجام شده‌اند، در حالی که حدود 1/41 درصد از مطالعات بررسی شده بین سال‌های 2010 تا 2015 انجام شده‌اند . همچنین 68.49 درصد از مطالعات بررسی شده از طرح تحقیق کیفی و حدود 24.65 درصد از روش ترکیبی استفاده کرده اند. در حالی که تنها حدود 6.86 درصد از روش کمی استفاده کرده اند. نتایج نشان داد که بیشتر مطالعات برنامه درسی زبان انگلیسی در آسیا (54.79%)، پس از آن اروپا (20.55%)، آمریکا (13.70 %) و آفریقا (%6.84) انجام شده اند.علاوه بر این، 4.10 درصد از مطالعات برنامه درسی آموزش زبان انگلیسی را در سطح جهانی مورد بررسی قرار داده اند. یافته ها نشان داد که تشخیص یک الگوی قوی در برنامه درسی آموزش زبان دشوار خواهد بود زیرا آنها موضوعات مختلفی را بررسی کرده اند. اکثر  مطالعات به صورت کیفی و در مقیاس کوچک انجام شده اند. بنابراین برای پرداختن به موضوع تعمیم‌ پذیری در آموزش زبان انگلیسی، نیاز به مطالعات گسترده‌تری به‌ ویژه مطالعات کمی در مناطق مختلف جغرافیایی است.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
سیاست های آموزش زبان, برنامه ریزی برنامه های آموزشی, سیاست های زبانی,   سیاست های برنامه ی آموزشی, مطالعه ی مروری نظام مند
مراجع
  1. Agçam, R., & Babanoglu, M. P. (2020). Evaluation of the learning outcomes in the revised EFL curriculum: A research on outcome verbs. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 12(1), 127-142. https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.724897  
  2. Ahmad, A., & Khan, S. (2011). Significance of language policy awareness in English language teaching. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15(1), 1897-1900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.04.023
  3. Al-Issa, A. S. (2007). The implications of implementing a flexible 'syllabus for ESL policy in the Sultanate of Oman. RELC Journal, 38(2), 199-215. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688207079693 
  4. Al-Issa, A. S. M. (2012). The implications of expanding the instruction time for the English language teaching policy implementation in the Sultanate of Oman: A qualitative study. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 10(4), 311-333. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427587.2013.846246
  5. Alméciga, E., & Yesid, W. (2013). Identity-forming discourses: A critical discourse analysis on policy making processes concerning English language teaching in Colombia. Profile Issues in Teachers Professional Development, 15(1), 45-60. http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?pid=S165707902013000100004&script=sci_arttext&tlng=en
  6. Alnefaie, S. K. (2016). Teachers’ role in the development of EFL curriculum in Saudi Arabia: The marginalized status. Cogent Education, 3(1), 1240008. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1240008
  7. Amir, A., & Musk, N. (2013). Language policing: Micro-level language policy-in-process in the foreign language classroom. Classroom Discourse, 4(2), 151-167. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2013.783500
  8. Atai, M. R., & Mazlum, F. (2013). English language teaching curriculum in Iran: Planning and practice. The Curriculum Journal, 24(3), 389-411. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2012.744327
  9. Arik, E., & Arik, B. T. (2021). The different aspects of English language teaching and learning: A scientometric analysis. Journal of Scientometric Research, 10(1), 84-93. https://doi.org/10.5530/jscires.10.1.10
  10. Azmi, M., & Nazri. L. (2013). National language policy and its impacts on second language reading culture. Journal of International Education and Leadership, 3(1), 1-11 https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1136083
  11. Bantwini, B. D. (2010). How teachers perceive the new curriculum reform: Lessons from a school district in the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. International Journal of Educational Development, 30(1), 83-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2009.06.002
  12. Bereczki, E. O., & Kárpáti, A. (2018). Teachers’ beliefs about creativity and its nurture: A systematic review of the recent research literature. Educational Research Review, 23, 25-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.10.003
  13. Bhattacharya, U. (2017). Colonization and English ideologies in India: A language policy perspective. Language Policy, 16(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-015-9399-27
  14. Borg, C. (2019). The Role of students in the governance of public higher education: A case study of Malta. Journal of Intercultural Management, 11(3), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.2478/joim-2019-0015
  15. Bruen, J., & Sheridan, V. (2016). The impact of the collapse of communism and EU accession on language education policy and practice in Central and Eastern Europe: Two case-studies focusing on English and Russian as foreign languages in Hungary and Eastern Germany. Current Issues in Language Planning, 17(2), 141-160. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2016.1099593
  16. Cha, Y.-K., & Ham, S.-H. (2011). Educating supranational citizens: The incorporation of English language education into curriculum policies. Asia Pacific Education Review, 12(2), 183-209. https://doi.org/10.1086/657887
  17. Chan, J. Y. H. (2019). Four decades of ELT development in Hong Kong: Impact of global theories on the changing curricula and textbooks. Language Teaching Research, 23(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819865563
  18. Chan, J. Y. H. (2020). Towards English as an international language: The evolving ELT curricula and textbooks in Hong Kong. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 30(2), 244-263. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12277
  19. Channa, L. A. (2014). English medium for the government primary schools of Sindh, Pakistan: An exploration of government primary school teachers' attitudes [Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia].
  20. Chowdhury, R., & Kabir, A. H. (2014). Language wars: English education policy and practice in Bangladesh. Multilingual Education, 4(1), Article 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13616-014-0021-2
  21. Cruz Arcila, F. (2018). ELT policy interpretations and translations in rural Colombia. Current Issues in Language Planning, 19(4), 363-382. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2017.1377903
  22. Elyas, T., & Badawood, O. (2016). English language educational policy in Saudi Arabia Post-21st century: Enacted curriculum, identity, and modernization: A critical discourse analysis approach. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 5(3), 70-81.https://doi.org/10.18275/fire201603031093
  23. Fallon, G., & Rublik, N. (2012). Second-language education policy in Quebec: ESL teachers' perceptions of the effects of the policy of English as a compulsory subject at the early primary level. TESL Canada Journal 29(2), 58-73. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v29i2.1100
  24. Fang, X., & Garland, P. (2014). Teacher orientations to ELT curriculum reform: An ethnographic study in a Chinese secondary school. ELT Journal, 23, 311-319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-013-0106-9
  25. Firman, F., Tersta, F. W., Riantoni, C., & Sekonda, F. A. (2019). An Analysis of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) Teachers' Pedagogical Competence and Readiness in Maintaining the Implementation of the 2013 Curriculum. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 14(13), 474-483. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2019.3705
  26. Fisne, F. N., Güngör, M. N., Guerra, L., & Gonçalves, O. (2018). A CEFR-Based Comparison of ELT Curriculum and Course Books Used in Turkish and Portuguese Primary Schools. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 12(2), 129-151. https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.415358
  27. Flynn, N. (2015). Disambiguating with Bourdieu: unravelling policy from practice in the teaching of children with English as an additional language. Literacy, 49(1), 20-27. https://doi.org/10.1111/lit.12049
  28. Flynn, N., & Curdt-Christiansen, X. L. (2018). Intentions versus enactment: making sense of policy and practice for teaching English as an additional language. Language and Education, 32(5), 410-427. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2018.1475484
  29. Fredricks, D. E., & S. Warriner, D. (2016). “We speak English in here and English only!”: Teacher and ELL youth perspectives on restrictive language education. Bilingual Research Journal, 39(3-4), 309-323. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2016.1230565
  30. García, O., & Menken, K. (2010). Stirring the onion: Educators and the dynamics of language education policies (looking ahead). In K. Menken & O. García (Eds.), Negotiating language policies in schools: Educators as policymakers (pp. 249–261). Routledge.
  31. Garton, S. (2014). Unresolved issues and new challenges in teaching English to young learners: The case of South Korea. Current Issues in Language Planning, 15(2), 201-219. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2014.858657
  32. Garzón, E. A. A. (2018). Unlicensed EFL Teachers Co-Constructing Knowledge and Transforming Curriculum through Collaborative-Reflective Inquiry. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 20(1), 73-87.
  33. Gherzouli, I. (2019). Towards a democratic Algerian curriculum development through secondary school EFL teachers' involvement. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 11(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1101.01
  34. Gorter, D. (2013). Linguistic landscapes in a multilingual world. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 33, 190-212. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190513000020
  35. Gunal, O. D., & Engin-Demir, C. (2012). Implementation of the new eighth grade English language curriculum from the perspectives of teachers and students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 1002-1006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.769
  36. Hamid, M. O., & Nguyen, H. T. M. (2016). Globalization, English language policy, and teacher agency: Focus on Asia. International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives, 15(1), 26-43.
  37. Hardman, J., & A-Rahman, N. (2014). Teachers and the implementation of a new English curriculum in Malaysia. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 27(3), 260-277. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.980826
  38. Hashimoto, K. (2013). ‘English-only’, but not a medium-of-instruction policy: the Japanese way of internationalizing education for both domestic and overseas students. Current Issues in Language Planning, 14(1), 16-33. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2013.789956
  39. Hawanti, S. (2014). Implementing Indonesia’s English language teaching policy in primary schools: The role of teachers’ knowledge and beliefs. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 9(2), 162-170. https://doi.org/10.1080/18334105.2014.11082029
  40. Hayes, A. (2018). Tacit rejection of policy and teacher ambivalence: Insights into English language teaching in Bahrain through actors’ perceptions. TESOL Journal, 9(1), 114-137. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.310
  41. Heineke, A. J. (2015). Negotiating language policy and practice: Teachers of english learners in an Arizona study group. Educational Policy, 29(6), 843-878.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904813518101
  42. Hillman, S., Selvi, A. F., & Yazan, B. (2021). A scoping review of world Englishes in the Middle East and North Africa. World Englishes, 40(2), 159-175.https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12505  
  43. Hult, F. M. (2012). English as a transcultural language in Swedish policy and practice. TESOL Quarterly, 46(2), 230-257. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.19
  44. Hult, F. M. (2018). Foreign language education policy on the horizon. Foreign Language Annals, 51(1), 35-45. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12315
  45. Kabilan, M. K., & Veratharaju, K. (2013). Professional development needs of primary school English-language teachers in Malaysia. Professional Development in Education, 39(3), 330-351. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2012.762418
  46. Kamwendo, G. H. (2019). English as a medium of teaching and learning in a resource-poor country: The case of Malawi’s new language policy. Africa Education Review, 16(6), 37-52. https://doi.org/10.1080/18146627.2018.1464699
  47. Kaya, S. (2019). A comparison between the fifth grade intensive English language curriculum and the fifth grade English language curriculum: Students' achievement in speaking. European Journal of Educational Research, 8(4), 921-933. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.8.4.921
  48. Kepol, N. (2017). Quality Malaysian English language teachers: Examining a policy strategy. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 14(1), 187-209. https://doi.org/10.32890/mjli2017.14.1.8  
  49. Kiany, G. R., Mahdavy, B., & Ghafar Samar, R. (2011). Towards a harmonized foreign language education program in Iran: National policies and English achievement. Literacy Information and Computer Educational Journal, 2(3), 462-469.
  50. Kirkgöz, Y. (2009). Globalization and English language policy in Turkey. Educational Policy, 23(5), 663-684. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904808316319
  51. Kostoulas, A., & Stelma, J. (2017). Understanding curriculum change in an ELT school in Greece. Elt Journal, 71(3), 354-363. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccw087
  52. Larsen, P., & Von Ins, M. (2010). The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index. Scientometrics, 84, 575-603. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0202-z
  53. Lawson, T., Çakmak, M., Gündüz, M., & Busher, H. (2015). Research on teaching practicum–a systematic review. European journal of Teacher Education, 38(3), 392-407.https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2014.994060 
  54. Lavrenteva, E., & Orland-Barak, L. (2015). The treatment of culture in the foreign language curriculum: An analysis of national curriculum documents. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 47(5), 653-684. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2015.1056233
  55. Le, M. D., Nguyen, H. T. M., & Burns, A. (2020). English primary teacher agency in implementing teaching methods in response to language policy reform: A Vietnamese case study. Current Issues in Language Planning, 22, 199-224. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2020.1741209
  56. Lee, M. W. (2014). A participatory EFL curriculum for the marginalized: The case of North Korean refugee students in South Korea. System, 47, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.09.013
  57. Lei, M., & Medwell, J. (2020). How do English language teachers understand the idea of professional development in the recent curriculum reforms in China.  Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 40(3) 401-417. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2020.1717440
  58. Levin B. (2008). Curriculum policy and the politics of what should be learned in schools. In F. M. Connelly, M. F. He, & J. Phillion (Eds.), The Sage handbook of curriculum and instruction (pp. 7-23). SAGE..
  59. Li, M. (2017). Power relations in the enactment of English language education policy for Chinese schools. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 38(5), 713-726. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2016.1141177
  60. Li, S. C., Poon, A. Y. K., Lai, T. K. H., & Tam, S. T. C. (2018). Does middle leadership matter? Evidence from a study of system-wide reform on English language curriculum. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 1(1).1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2018.1529823
  61. Liddicoat, A. J., & Kirkpatrick, A. (2020). Dimensions of language education policy in Asia. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 30(1-2), 7-33.https://doi.org/10.1075/japc.00043.kir
  62. Liu, Y., Wang, H., & Zhao, R. (2020). Teacher agency and spaces in changes of English language education policy. Current Issues in Language Planning, 21(5), 548-566. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2020.1791532
  63. Machida, T., & Walsh, D. J. (2015). Implementing EFL policy reform in elementary schools in Japan: a case study. Current Issues in Language Planning, 16(3), 221-237. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2015.970728
  64. MacLure, M. (1993). Arguing for your self: Identity as an organizing principle in teachers’ jobs and lives. British educational research journal, 19(4), 311-322. https://doi.org/10.1080/0141192930190401  
  65. Manan, S. A., David, M. K., & Dumanig, F. P. (2015). Disjunction between language policy and children's sociocultural ecology – an analysis of English-medium education policy in Pakistan. Language and Education, 29(5), 453-473. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2015.1046882
  66. Martin, C. (2012). Pupils' perceptions of foreign language learning in the primary school – findings from the Key Stage 2 Language Learning Pathfinder evaluation. Education 3-13, 40(4), 343-362. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2012.691373
  67. Matsuda, A., & Friedrich, P. (2011). English as an international language: A curriculum blueprint. World Englishes, 30(3), 332-344. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.2011.01717.x
  68. Mirhosseini, S. A., & Khodakarami, S. (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). British Council.
  69.  
  70. Mirhosseini, S.-A., & Khodakarami, S. (2016). Aspects of ‘English language education’ policies in Iran: ‘Our own beliefs’ or ‘out of who you are’. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 11(3), 283-299. https://doi.org/10.1080/17447143.2016.1217870
  71. Mohamed, N. (2020). First language loss and negative attitudes towards Dhivehi among young Maldivians: Is the English-first educational policy to blame. TESOL Quarterly, 54(3), 743-772. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.591
  72. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & Prisma Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS medicine, 6(7), e1000097.
  73. Murphy, A. F., & Torff, B. (2019). Teachers' beliefs about rigor of curriculum for English language learners. The Educational Forum, 83(1), 90-101. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2018.1505991
  74. Nguyen, H. T. M. (2011). Primary English language education policy in Vietnam: Insights from implementation. Current Issues in Language Planning, 12(2), 225-249. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2011.597048
  75. Okoth, T. A. (2016). Challenges of implementing a top-Down curriculum innovation in English language teaching: Perspectives of Form III English language teachers in Kenya. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(3), 169-177. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1089803
  76. Paul Glasgow, G. (2014). Teaching English in English, ‘in principle’: The national foreign language curriculum for Japanese senior high schools. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 9(2), 152-161. https://doi.org/10.1080/18334105.2014.11082028
  77. Peele-Eady, T. B., & Foster, M. L. (2018). The more things change, the more they stay the same: African American English, language policy, and African American learners. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 31(8), 652-666. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2018.1478155
  78. Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L. P. (2007). What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 921-958. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170308401007
  79. Pérez, Y., Rey, L., & Rosado, N. (2019). Characteristics of EFL curriculum in the Colombian Caribbean Coast: The Case of 12 state schools. English Language Teaching, 12 (11), 85-96. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v12n11p85
  80. Plaisance, M., Salas, S., & D'Amico, M. M. (2018). Like driving from “the back seat”: Teaching English as a second language in commodified curricular terrains. TESOL Journal, 9(1), 160-184. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.314
  81. Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2010). Generalization in quantitative and qualitative research: Myths and strategies. International journal of nursing studies, 47(11), 1451-1458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.06.004   
  82. Poon, A. Y. K. (2013). Will the new fine-tuning medium-of-instruction policy alleviate the threats of dominance of English-medium instruction in Hong Kong. Current Issues in Language Planning, 14(1), 34-51. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2013.791223
  83. Rashidi, N., & Hosseini, S. A. (2019). The perceptions of Iranian policymakers as articulated in Iran’s foreign language policy document: A systemic functional linguistics Approach. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 7(1), 23-42. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1201782
  84. Russak, S. (2016). Do inclusion practices for pupils with special educational needs in the English as a foreign language class in Israel reflect inclusion laws and language policy requirements. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 20(11), 1188-1203. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2016.1155666
  85. Sahraee Juybari, M., & Bozorgian, H. (2020). Cultural Linguistics and ELT curriculum: The case of ‘Prospect’ English textbooks in Iran. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 30(3), 479-496. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12301 
  86. Sarani, A., & Ahmadi, M. (2013). A study of vocational and non-vocational high school learners’ language proficiency and motivation. Advances in Asian Social Science, 4(3), 892-898.
  87. Sauntson, H., & Simpson, K. (2011). Investigating sexuality discourses in the U.K. secondary English curriculum. Journal of Homosexuality, 58(6-7), 953-973. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2011.581955
  88. Sharbawi, S., & Jaidin, J. H. (2020). Brunei’s SPN21 English language-in-education policy: A macro-to-micro evaluation. Current Issues in Language Planning, 21(2), 175-201. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2019.1657267
  89. Shhiba, S., & Embark, S. (2011). An investigation of Libyan EFL teachers’ conceptions of the communicative learner-centered approach in relation to their implementation of an English language curriculum innovation in secondary schools [Doctoral dissertation, Durham University].
  90. Smit, B. (2005). Teachers, local knowledge, and policy implementation: A qualitative policy-practice inquiry. Education and Urban Society, 37(3), 292-306. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124505275426
  91. Sofiana, N., Mubarok, H., & Yuliasri, I. (2019). English Language Teaching in Secondary Schools: An Analysis of the Implementation of Indonesian ELT 2013 Curriculum. International Journal of Instruction, 12 (1), 1533-1544. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1201318
  92. Sulaiman, S., Sulaiman, T., & Rahim, S. S. A. (2017). Teachers' perceptions of the standard-based English language curriculum in Malaysian primary schools. International Journal of Instruction, 10(3), 195-208. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.12198a
  93. Teo, P. (2017). Bridging policy and practice: A study of EFL teacher Talk in China. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language, 21(3), 1-24. http://www.tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume21/ej83/ej83a1/ .
  94. Tohidian, I., & Nodooshan, S. G. (2020). Teachers’ engagement within educational policies and decisions improves classroom practice: The case of Iranian ELT school teachers. Improving Schools, , 24(1), 33-46. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480220906625
  95. Tom-Lawyer, O. O. (2015). Lecturers' perceptions of the implementation of the revised English language Nigeria certificate in education curriculum. journal of Education and Practice, 6(12), 181-193. https://clok.uclan.ac.uk/16730/
  96. Trube, M. B. (2012). Content-language integrated second language instruction: Curriculum and the CCUEI context. International Education ,41(2), 19-32. 
  97. Tupas, R. (2018). (Un)framing language policy and reform in Southeast Asia. RELC Journal, 49(2), 149-163. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688218772155 
  98. Ulum, Ö. G. (2015). EFL policy of Turkey: Past and present. International Journal of Development Research, 5(9), 5577-5580. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED577303
  99. Wang, F., & Clarke, A. (2014). The practicum experiences of English Language Major student teachers during a period of profound curriculum reform in China. International Journal of Educational Development, 36, 108-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2013.10.001
  100. Yang, J., & Jang, I. C. (2020). The everyday politics of English-only policy in an EFL language school: Practices, ideologies, and identities of Korean bilingual teachers. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 25(3), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2020.1740165
  101. Yeni-Palabiyik, P., & Daloglu, A. (2016). English language teachers' implementation of curriculum with action-oriented approach in Turkish primary education classrooms. Journal on English Language Teaching, 6(2), 45-57. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1131375
  102. Yusuf, H. O. (2014). Assessment of the implementation of the reading component of the English language curriculum for basic education in Nigeria.  Advances in Language and Literary Studies 5(2), 96-102. https://journals.aiac.org.au/index.php/alls/article/view/314
  103. Zacharias, N. T. (2013). Navigating through the English-medium-of-instruction policy: Voices from the field. Current Issues in Language Planning, 14(1), 93-108. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2013.782797
  104. Zhu, Y., & Shu, D. (2017). Implementing foreign language curriculum innovation in a Chinese secondary school: An ethnographic study on teacher cognition and classroom practices. System, 66, 100-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.03.006 
  105. Zorba, M. G., & Arikan, A. (2016). A study of anatolian high schools' 9th grade English language curriculum in relation to the CEFR. Usak Üniversitesi Egitim Arastirmalari Dergisi, 2(2), 13-24. https://doi.org/10.29065/usakead.232436
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 443
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 229


سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب