EST Reading Instructional Approaches at the Senior Secondary School Level in Yemen: A Case Study
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Recently, within the increasing implementation of the communicative language teaching (CLT) approach to teaching English as a foreign language (EFL), the Yemeni EFL secondary school curriculum has adopted the CLT approach. This qualitative exploratory case study aimed at examining whether or not the Yemeni English for Science and Technology (EST) senior secondary reading instructional implementation is a communicative-based instruction in nature as it is labelled. The data were collected from reading classroom observations and analysed in terms of student-teacher interaction pattern as well as teacher and learner roles based on Richards’ and Rodgers’ Model (2001). The coding scheme used for coding the features of the Initiation-Response-Evaluation method (IRE) and the Communicative Reading Instructional method (CRI) was developed from previous studies. The findings showed that the traditional IRE and the teacher role as a director are extensively represented in the Yemeni EST senior secondary school reading instruction more than the CRI. This finding contradicts the communicative-label of the Yemeni English language curriculum. The findings are discussed in terms of the alignment of the curriculum communicative-label with regards to the EST senior secondary school reading classroom instructional implementation.
Â
Keywords: Communicative Language Teaching approach (CLT); Initiation-Response-Evaluation Approach (IREA); Communicative Reading Instructional Approach (CRIA).
Â
Downloads
Article Details
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (SeeThe Effect of Open Access).
References
References
Atkins, A.O. (1996). Teachers’ opinions of the teacher evaluation process. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 398 628)
Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative meta synthesis. Educational Researcher, 36, 258-267 doi: 10.3102/0013189X07306523
Colby, S.A., Bradshaw, L.K., & Joyner, R.L. (2002). Teacher Evaluation: A Review of the Literature. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, 1 - 5 April.
Collins, A.B. (2004). Teacher performance evaluation: A stressful experience from a private secondary school. Educational Research, 46 (1), 43-54.
Earl, L., & Katz, S. (2006). Rethinking Classroom Assessment with a Purpose in Mind.
Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/assess/wncp/rethinking_assess_mb.pdf
Egelson, P., & McColskey, W. (1998). Teacher evaluation: The road to excellence. Current findings on teacher evaluation models that support professional growth. Sharing success. (ERIC Document Service ED446 063).
Egelson, P. (1994, July). Teacher evaluation plans that support professional growth. Paper presented at the National Evaluation Institute of the Center for Research on Educational Accountability and Teacher Evaluation, Gatlinburg, TN, July 10-15.
Hill, H. and C. Herlihy, (2011) “Prioritizing Teaching Quality in a New System of Teacher Evaluationâ€, Education Outlook, no. 9, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
Finfgeld, D.L. (2003). Meta synthesis: The state of the art-so far. Qualitative Health Research, 13(7), 893-904.
Johnson, B.L. (1997). An Organizational analysis of multiple perspectives of effective teaching: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11, 69-87.
Lengeling, M. M. (1996). The complexities of evaluating teachers. (ERIC Document Service ED399 822).
Looney, J. (2011) Developing High-QualityTeachers: teacher evaluation for improvement European Journal of Education,Vol. 46, No. 4, 2011
Oliva, P. (1989). Supervision for today’s school. New York: Longman.
Pehlivan, İ., Demirbaş, A., & Eroğlu, E. (2000). Öğretmenlerin performans değerlendirme model ve sicil raporları. MEB-EARGED: Ankara.
Poster, D. C. (1991) Teacher appraisal: a guide to training. New York: Routledge.
Timperley, H., (2011). Realising the Power of Professional Learning, Open University Press, London
Tot, D. (2013). Evaluation of learners, teachers and school management boards with regard to the indicators of contemporary teacher competencies. Croatian Journal of Education, 15(3), 801-821.
U.S. Department of Education (2011). Our future, our teachers. Retrieved October 5, 2015 www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/our-future-our-teachers-accesible.pdf