Program evaluation

To launch an evidence source for successive judgment and decision making, program evaluation of any educational institute is an indispensable process, and language institutes are not the exceptions. In an attempt to propose a solution for a fundamental problem as the lack of a standard evaluation program for English language institutes, this study used a new method to be implemented in the context of ‘English language institutes (ELIs)’ of Iran. In this country, evaluation of nongovernmental centers, including ELIs, is carried out by the Ministry of Education (ME) using a performance evaluation framework which mainly collects the required data through a survey form (locally known as ‘Form 322’). We adopted and applied the survey form 322 into developing a specific questionnaire. Ninety ELIs administrators of Mazandaran were surveyed through an instrument that was piloted and validated through the obtained data. The extracted results from the questionnaire were sorted into the categories of “validation”, “improvement”, “redesigning”, and “researchers’ opinion”. The results showed that the original form, long used in the country, needs to be redesigned. To cross-validate the obtained data and the emerging results, fifteen volunteers from the participating institutes were interviewed for their ideas through Skype and direct interview. Consistent with the results, not only for Iran are an online platform and a standard evaluation and monitoring process recommended, but also an international integrated performance evaluation standard is strongly suggested for English language institutes.

This study, contrary to the conventional research on PCK, which attempted to enhance the teachers’ PCK and single out its driving factors, aims to use PCK as an outcome-based lens for evaluating Iranian EFL teachers’ programs. To this end, two current EFL teacher-education programs (i.e., State and Islamic Azad universities on the one hand and Farhnagian Teacher Education University on the other), each with its specific approach to developing EFL teachers’ PCK, were selected. Along with administering a glocally developed and validated PCK questionnaire among 263 student-teachers, this study ran a one-on-one semi-structured interview with 80 student-teachers to capture a crystal-clear evaluation of the outcomes the programs were to cultivate. The results of running qualitative and MANOVA analysis methods showed the student-teachers trained in the program with a more finely-tuned PCK instruction, which was accompanied by four continuous courses of teaching internship, were more cognizant of the role of PCK in their professional development and enjoyed a statistically significant index of developed PCK. Although there existed some similarities between these programs in terms of reviewing high school English course books, evaluation and assessment, and applying technology in teaching English, student-teachers in both programs were not completely aware of different components of PCK, including curriculum design and materials development, language teachers’ technological knowledge, and professional development. The results imply that content knowledge, PCK, and internship should be fettered together. The findings suggest that EFL teachers’ PCK can be applied as an effective lens for delving deeply into teacher training programs.