A brief overview of the foreign language learning in the Iranian context is provided below. This includes describing the Iranian Curriculum in general, and a detailed review of
85
foreign language learning. Strauss and Corbin (2008) state that delineation of the context is one of the critical elements of data analysis in qualitative research. “Context not only grounds concepts, but also minimises the chance of distorting meaning and/or misrepresenting intent” (Strauss & Corbin, 2008; p.57). Considering the strong link between language and culture, as well as Iranian society’s unique cultural patterns, it seems inevitable to describe the context and subsequently discuss the findings of the study accordingly in the following chapters.
Iran, also known as Persia, is a country located in the middle-east, neighbouring several countries: Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. Iran is also bordered by the Caspian Sea to the north and the Persian Gulf to the south. Data retrieved from the National Census completed in 2016 (www.amar.org.ir/english) reports that Iran’s population is 80,043,146, almost 60 million of whom live in urban areas. The report also shows a 94% literacy rate for Iranians aged 10 to 49. Tehran is the capital and the most populous city in Iran, home for more than %16 percent of the country’s total
population.
The majority of people in Iran speak Persian (also called Farsi by locals) as their first language, which is the official language of the country, too (Brown & Ogilvie, 2009). There are also bilinguals in Iran who speak other languages such as Turkish, Kurdish, Arabic or one of the many other local languages, such as Gilaki (Brown & Ogilvie, 2009). In the city of Zanjan, where the data for the current research was collected, the majority of the people are bilinguals speaking Turkish and Persian. Many learners, therefore, acquire an additional language, such as English, as a third language. Within this study, the participants were English language teachers and students, excluding other foreign languages. The English language is considered as a foreign language in the Iranian context. Foreign language is defined as:
86
“a language which is not the native language of large numbers of people in a particular country or region, is not used as a medium of instruction in schools, and is not widely used as a medium of communication in government, media, etc. Foreign languages are typically taught as school subjects for the purpose of communicating with foreigners or for reading printed materials in the language (Richards & Schmidt, 2002, p. 206).”
Similarly, in the Iranian context, English is not used and spoken widely outside the educational environment (i.e., classroom context), and language learners are not engaged in authentic communication with native speakers of English in their immediate social context (Mohammadian Haghighi & Norton, 2017). The official language in the education sector is also Persian throughout the country, including areas with speakers of other languages and dialects. The Persian language is written in Arabic script, with an exception that the Persian alphabet includes four more letters making a total of 32 letters. Accordingly, a Persian speaker can read Arabic script to some extent, however, he/she would not be able to decode the meaning, unless he/she knows the Arabic language. By the advent of Islam in Iran in 637 and Islamisation of the country, many Arabic words crept into the Persian language, and since been widely used by Persian speakers (Kia, 1998). Almost all the documentation in Iran are printed in Persian as the official language, however, some organisations have bilingual (with English as the second language) documents to meet the foreign needs.
The school system in Iran follows a national curriculum designed and developed by the Ministry of Education (http://www.medu.ir). Therefore, learning materials, such as textbooks and standardised assessment tools, and procedures are almost the same in all the schools around the country. Children start going to school at the age of six. The primary school lasts for six years, followed by the middle school for three years, and high school for another three years (Hazari, 2015). According to the governmental policies, all the schools in Iran are single-sex, and girls and boys attend separate schools until they start higher
87
education at the university level (Hazari, 2015). Schools are generally divided into two main groups: public schools, which are tuition-free and funded by the government, and private schools, which charge tuition fees and are believed to have higher educational qualities in comparison to public schools (Khoshsima & Toroujeni, 2017). A third system, which is called ‘Nemuneh Mardomi’, lies between the two previously mentioned systems. These schools are believed to have better educational qualities compared to public schools, while more affordable compared to private schools (Khoshsima & Toroujeni, 2017). Nemuneh Mardomi schools, however, have limited vacancies and conduct entrance exams and only qualified students may apply.
The grading system in Iran is ordinal and awards scores from zero to 20 in middle and high school. This system, however, was recently modified for the primary school period, and students receive descriptive evaluations including ‘excellent’, ‘good’, ‘satisfactory’, and ‘needs further improvement’ (Hazari, 2015). The primary curriculum includes mathematics, science, Persian, social sciences, theology, art, sports, work and technology, thinking and research, and the Quran (Hazari, 2015). The study of foreign languages, particularly Arabic and English, begin from the middle school. By the end of middle school, students need to select from three high school types: the theoretical system, the technical-
vocational/professional system, and the manual skills system (Hazari, 2015). The theoretical path includes three specialities: mathematics, experimental sciences, and
literature/humanities. While the theoretical pathway prepares students to enter higher education at the university level, the other two high school systems help students to gain practical skills and prepare them to enter the job market by the time of graduation (Hazari, 2015).
Irrespective of the pathways or the specialities, all students need to undertake English and Arabic language courses as compulsory units (Sadeghi & Richards, 2016). This means
88
Iranian students study these foreign languages for six years, starting from the middle school to the high school. Research (Mohammadian Haghighi, & Norton, 2017), however, shows that the current foreign language teaching system in the Iranian schools has not been successful in helping students to become a proficient user of either English nor Arabic languages. While the nature of learning a new language requires authentic communication (Kumaravadivelu, 2006), the schools do not have the potential capability to achieve this aim.
There are several reasons for this phenomenon. One significant cause has originated from limited language class hours (Mohammadian Haghighi, & Norton, 2017). The allocated time for the study of English is generally limited to 90 minutes per week, and teachers need to address the prescribed materials in the textbooks within this restricted timeframe. This results in teachers mainly focusing on the lexical and syntactical elements of the language, and ignoring the communicative and social aspects (Mohammadian Haghighi, & Norton, 2017). Yet, a large number of the students in every class, often between 25 and 40, makes it even more difficult to engage the students in conversation in the target language in 90 minutes.
Another impeding factor is the structure of summative language assessments (Dahmardeh, 2009). According to Dehmardeh, the majority of the language-based end-of- the-term exams in the Iranian school system are paper-based and do not assess students’ communicative skills, such as speaking and listening. Tests mainly comprise of multiple- choice, fill in the blank, and short response questions. Dahmardeh (2009) states that
achievement in language units are recognised by the ability of the students to answer lexical and syntactical questions in the test rather than adequate attention to communicative aspects.
Most schools also irrespective of their size and population are not equipped with technological tools, such as CD players, TVs, or computers (Hedayati, Reynolds & Bown, 2018). Accordingly, teachers are not able to provide students with authentic learning
89
materials in the target language by, for example, playing audio or video resources (Hedayati et al., 2018). Given this, it seems that teachers maintain their focus on covering the text-based materials in the course books, which do not require the use of any technologies.
From a cultural perspective, while proficiency in the Arabic language is not considered essential, many students are motivated to develop their English language
communicative competence to fulfil their future needs in the globalised world (Khoshsima & Toroujeni, 2017; Sadeghi & Richards, 2016). The majority of language learners (especially adult learners), therefore, in Iran enrol in courses in private language schools (PLS) to learn a foreign language, mainly English, in a communicative and more flexible way (Hedayati et al., 2018). Mohammadian Haghighi and Norton (2017) reported that lack of competent language teachers and limited class hours in the general schools motivate language learners to seek better language learning experiences in PLSs. Accordingly, PLSs tend to adopt
communicative teaching approaches, such as communicative language teaching (CLT) and Task-based language teaching (TBLT), rather than methods informed by behaviouristic approaches, such as audiolingual and grammar translation methods (Hedayati et al., 2018).
A short description of TBLT and CLT teachings approaches is presented next to explain the key features of each approach. Nunan (2004, p.1) describes the following characteristics for TBLT approach:
• A needs-based approach to content selection.
• An emphasis on learning to communicate through interaction in the target language. • The introduction of authentic texts into the learning situation.
• The provision of opportunities for learners to focus not only on language but also on the learning process itself.
• An enhancement of the learner’s own personal experiences as important contributing elements to classroom learning.
90
• The linking of classroom language learning with language use outside the classroom.
According to the above characteristics, in TBLT language, learners are deemed to play more active roles in language learning processes and extend their learning experiences beyond the classroom environment (Nunan, 2004). The use of authentic materials and selecting content according to learners’ needs help them to better relate the classroom practices to their extramural everyday activities. Defining a task by the teacher and its implementation by the students are at the core of TBLT, and the main components include goal, input and procedure (Nunan, 2004). In completing the tasks, language learners attempt to achieve a certain pre-determined goal, which necessitates them to follow particular procedures. In general, any activity in the classroom environment would be assumed as a task, however, tasks need to be used as a work plan with focusing on the negotiation of meaning and achieving a certain goal (Nunan, 2004).
As noticed by Nunan (2004), CLT is not a unitary approach for it embraces a
collection of several approaches that focuses attention on the communication and negotiation of meaning, and teaching language learners what they need to know to be able to achieve their real-life goals. In CLT, language learners are primarily expected to develop their communicative competence. These insights led to the introduction of programs such as ESP (English for Specific Purposes) which puts forward the idea that a tourist to England, for instance, would have different language needs in comparison to an air traffic controller in Singapore (Nunan, 2004). While TBLT mainly is concerned with the completion of a task as the indictor of successful learning, CLT approach directs more attention to the interaction among the language learners. Both approaches, however, focus more on negation of meaning, rather than language form (Nunan, 2004).
91
On the other end of the continuum are methods with behaviouristic approaches to learning, such as the Grammar-Translation Method (GTM) and the Audiolingual method. Main principles and practices of these two methods are shortly presented here. In GTM language learners are encouraged to memorise long vocabulary lists, translate target language into the mother tongue, and learn grammar rules largely following PPP paradigm: that is present, practice, and produce (Kumaravadivelu, 2006). GTM lost its popularity by the advent of a more theory-based method called Audio-lingual in the 1970s (Richard & Rodgers, 2014). The Audiolingual method was believed to be the first method which was constructed based on the theories of language, language teaching, and language learning (Kumaravadivelu, 2006). The Audiolingual method is considered to be language-centred, which means learners are presented with preselected and pre-sequenced chunks of language to learn target language by repetition and memorisation techniques (Kumaravadivelu, 2006).