Analysis and Evaluation of the Course Objectives and Course Contents of the Intensive English Program at a University in Saudi Arabia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1504.26Keywords:
backward design, course contents, course objectives, modification, teaching to the testAbstract
This research addresses the gap between the course objectives of Intensive English and the course contents (especially the writing parts) of the textbooks prescribed for Arab students of Computer Science, Engineering, Media and Communication, Law, and Business Administration at a university in Saudi Arabia. This study explores the perspectives of Saudi learners about the course Intensive English and the contents of the prescribed textbooks. Both qualitative and quantitative research have been used for this study. For data collection, a questionnaire consisting of ten closed questions was administered to the students. Apart from this, semi-structured interviews were held. The participants in this study were thirty-two Saudi female learners aged 18-19 whose L1 is Arabic. The findings of this study show that because of the vast course contents in the prescribed textbooks, all teachers focus on “teaching to the test/test-driven instruction’’. Based on the study's findings, it is evident that the course objectives of Intensive English need some revision and modification. This goes with the backward design of Mc Tighe and Wiggins (2005), which focuses on not covering a certain amount of content but emphasizes facilitating student learning. Considering the Backward Design of McTighe and Wiggins (2005), the study concludes with some recommendations so that the course objectives and contents of Intensive English can be revised and modified.
References
Azar, B. S. (2006). Fundamentals of English Grammar (3rd Edition). Pearson Education.
Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing learning through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(4), 347-64.
Burke, J. (2015). Teaching by Design. Tools and Techniques to Improve Instruction. Journal of Adolescent & Literacy, 59(3), 249-260.
Creswell, J., & Creswell, J. (2018). Research Design. Qualitative, Quantitative, Mixed Methods Approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publications Ltd.
Cunningsworth, A. (1995). Choosing Your Coursebook. Macmillan Education Australia.
Dye, T. (2022). Qualitative Data Analysis: Step-by-Step Guide (Manual vs. Automatic). Retrieved [February 21, 2024] from https://getthematic.com › insights › author › tylerdye.
Dubin, F., & Olshtain, E. (1986). Course Design. Developing programs and materials for language learning. Cambridge University Press.
Eiser, E.W. (1967). Educational Objectives-Help or Hindrance? The Journal of Educational Research, 60(3), 131-137.
Griffin, J. (2018). High Impact Practices in Online Education. Stylus Publishing, LLC.
Groleau, D., Zelkowitz, P., & Cabral, I. (2009). Enhancing generalizability: Moving from an intimate to a political voice. Qualitative Health Research, 19(3), 416-426. doi:10.1177/1049732308329851
Hendra, A.L. et al. (2021). Evolve 1 and 2. Special Edition. Cambridge University Press.
Hendra, A.L. et al. (2021). Evolve 3. Special Edition. Cambridge University Press.
Houghton, W. (2004). Engineering Subject Centre Guide: Learning and Teaching Theory for Engineering Academics. Loughborough: HEA Engineering Subject Centre.
Lizzio, A., Wilson, K., & Simons, R. (2002). University students’ perceptions of the learning environment and academic outcomes: Implications for theory and practice. Studies in Higher Education, 27(1), 27-52.
Mc Donough, J. & Shaw, C. (1993). Materials and Methods in ELT. A Teacher’s Guide. (2nd ed.). Blackwell Publishing.
McGrath, I. (2013). Teaching Materials and the Role of EFL/ESL Teachers. London. Bloomsbury.
McKimm, J., & Barrow, M. J., (2009). Curriculum and Course Design. British Journal of Hospital Medicine, 70(12), 714-717.
McTighe, J. & Wiggins, G. (2005). Understanding by Design (2nd ed.). ASCD.
Nunan, D. (1988). Syllabus Design. Oxford University Press.
Ormston, R., Spencer, L., Barnard, M., & Snape, D. (2014). The foundations of qualitative research. In J. Ritchie, J. Lewis, C. McNaughton Nicholls & R. Ormston (Eds.), Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers, (2nd ed.), (pp. 1-23). SAGE.
Ornstein, A.C., & Hunkins, F.P. (1988). Curriculum. Foundations, Principles, and Issues. (Second Edition). New York: Harper and Row.
Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2010). Generalization in quantitative and qualitative research: Myths and strategies. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 47, 1451-1458. doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.06.004
Schiro, M. (2013). Curriculum Theory: Conflicting Visions and Enduring Concerns (2nd Edition). Sage Publications.
Siddiqui, M.A. (2020). What is “Teaching to the Test?” Retrieved [October 21, 2024] from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/teaching-test-concept-pros-cons-dr-mansoor-agha-siddiqui.
Skierso, A. (1991). Textbook Selection and Evaluation. In Mc Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 432-453). Boston: Heinle and Heinle Publishers.
Tomlinson, B. (1998). Materials Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum Development: Theory and Practice. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.
Tyler, R. (1949). Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. The University of Chicago Press Ltd., London.
Weir, C. & Roberts, J. (1994). Evaluation in ELT. Blackwell Publishing Group.
