A Critical Study of Iranian EFL Environment

International Journal of English Language and Translation Studies
IJ-ELTS
e-ISSN: 2308-5460
Volume:1, Issue: 3
[October-December, 2013]
Editor-in-Chief
Mustafa Mubarak Pathan
Department of English Language & Translation Studies
The Faculty of Arts, the University of Sebha
Sebha, Libya
editor@eltsjournal.org
Senior Associate Editors

Dr Nicos C. Sifakis, Hellenic Open University, Greece
Dr. Anastasia Novoselova, Birmingham Metropolitan College, UK
Dr. Muhammad Abdel-Wahed Ali Darwish, Assiut University, Egypt
Dr. Abdurahman Ahmad Hamza, The University of Sebha, Libya
Dr. Firdevs KARAHAN, Sakarya University, Turkey
Dr. Sabria Salama Jawhar, King Saud bin Abdul Aziz University for Health Science, KSA
Dr. Claudia Porter, Oregon Health and Sciences University, Oregon, USA
Dr. Kuniyoshi Kataoka, Aichi University, Japan
Dr. Choudhary Zahid Javid, Taif University, KSA
Sayed Khaja Ahmad Moinuddin, MANUU, Hyderabad, India
Dr. M. Maniruzzaman, Jahangirnagar University, Bangladesh
Dr. Nagamurali Eragamreddi, Faculty of Education, Traghen, Libya
Dr. Zaheer Khan, University of Benghazi, Libya
Dr. Mzenga A. Wanyama, Augsburg College, Minneapolis, USA
Mirza Sultan Beig, S. R. T. M. University, India
B. Somnath, VNGIASS, Nagpur, India
Dr. Hassen ZRIBA, University of Gafsa, Tunisia
Dr. Sana Akram Saqqa, Al-Jouf University, KSA
Mariam Mansoor, The University of Sebha, Libya
Safia Ahmed Mujtaba, The University of Sebha, Libya
Assistant Editors
Omran Ali Abdalla Akasha, The University of Sebha, Libya
Dr. Prashant Subhashrao Mothe, Adarsh College, Omerga, India
Elena Bolel, Maltepe University, Istanbul, Turkey
Noura Winis Ibrahim Saleh, The University of Sebha, Libya
Technical Assistant
Samir Musa Patel, India
Indexed in: DOAJ, Index Copernicus International, Islamic World Science Citation Center,
Linguistics Abstracts Online, Open J-gate
International Indexed & Peer-Reviewed Journal of English Language & Translation Studies
www.eltsjournal.org
Vol-1, Issue-3 October-Decem ber, 2013
www.eltsjournal.org
P a ge | 1
International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies
ISSN: 2308-5460
A Critical Study of Iranian EFL Environment

[PP: 04-19]
Arezoo Molavi Vardanjani

Islamic Azad Universit y
Omidiyeh branch
Iran
Abstract
This paper discusses the theoretical and pedagogical issues in EFL learning and instruction
to explore the research problem the EFL teaching deficiencies in Iranian classrooms. The
primary aim o f this study is to provide a so lid overview o f the second language teaching
methods and approaches in the context of English as a foreign language in Iran. The
theoretical issues discussed include research on the nature of the two commo nly used
Grammar Translat ion Method (GTM) and Communicat ive Language Teaching approaches
(CLT), the methodology and strategies emplo yed in Iranian EFL classrooms and
evaluat ing the students achievement from the point of view of language teachers and
learners. To fulfill the aims o f the study, a modifie d versio n o f a BALLI quest ionnaire was
emplo yed. Results show that in spite o f its defic iencies, both teachers and students st ill
prefer to use the traditional GTM.
Key Words: EFL environment, Behaviorism, Co mmunicat ive Language Teaching, Iranian
EFL classrooms
Suggested Citation:
Vardanjani, A. M. (2013). A Crit ical Study o f Iranian EFL Envirnment. International
Journal of English Language & Translation Studies Vol-1, Issue-3. 04-19. Retrived fro m
http://www.eltsjournal.org
Vol-1, Issue-3
October-December, 2013 www.eltsjournal.org
ISSN: 2308-5460
1. Introduction
As Razmjoo & Riazi (2006) put it, teaching English as a foreign language is a
challenging task in developing countries in general and in our country in part icular. Forty
years ago, the assumpt ion was that teaching English was a polit ically neutral act ivit y and
acquiring it would lead to educational and econo mic empowerment. Today this picture has
changed more or less. Now that English is the language of globalizat ion, internat iona l
communicat ion, commerce and trade, media and culture, different motivations for learning
it come into play.
English has been included in the curriculum of Iranian schools and universit ies as
well, and considerable attention has been paid to it in t he last decades. However, despite
the universal promotion of language learning facilit ies and growing interests in learning
English as a foreign language in Iran, there is a commo n belief that English proficienc y
among Iranian junior universit y students is, on the average, far below that of expected of
academic senior high school students after years of studying English in eit her intermediate
or high schools where they have had it as a compulsory course in schools fro m the age of
12 and will cont inue the English course unt il the age of 18 at secondary level.
Surprisingly, after 7 years studying English, their abilit y to make small conversat ion in
English is shaky (Jahangard, 2007:30).
Bakhshi (1991) says that students knowledge of English at graduation t ime is not
more than kind o f a superficial understanding o f so me L2 vocabulary meaning and few
simple sentences. Likewise, Jalilifar (2010) believes that our students at the college level
seem rarely pro ficient enough to read and comprehend English language texts due to
which many of them lose their interest in learning English and this pheno menon could
lead to their failure in academic English courses. However, Kariminia & Salehi zade
(2007) claim that some o f the students, who pass the universit y entrance exams, do not
even know the basics o f the language while so me of them know abso lutely nothing, and
that teaching them resembles waking the dead! This is what jin yi Xu (2003) calls the
serious problem and has led to a teaching dilemma for teachers. There are co llege teachers
who are worried about the deteriorating English abilit y amo ng their students and who
attribute the pheno menon to insufficient exposure to English input during their senior high
school days (Ruixue, 2012; Mourtaga, 2010). Others attribute the phenomenon to overly
easy English entrance exams. So me researchers believe that there must be so mething
wrong with our current English educational syst em, or maybe so me language barriers
which are impeding our students learning and acquisit ion and many more supposit ions,
we can say wit h no certainty that, are grown out of realit y or fallacy. Therefore, this
seems to be a very interesting and also a serious quest ion for us teachers to speculate
about. In this regard, the present paper probes the problem o f Iranian EFL environment
fro m the po int of view o f language teachers and learners and aims to provide so me
pedagogical insights to help my co lleagues in varied kinds of decis io ns they need to make
in their daily class routine.
2. Literature review
The init ial stages of taking purposeful measures in the field of L2 teaching fall
completely short of any theoretical ideal. The twent ieth century has seen the rise and fall
of a variet y of methods and approaches fro m the Series Method (Gouin, 1880) to the
Vol-1, Issue-3
ISSN: 2308-5460
Audio-Lingual Method (Fries, 1945), the Designer Methods (Brown, 2001), and later
Communicat ive Language Teaching (Brumfit & Johnson, 1979; Wilkins, 1976). In regard
to the dissat isfact ion wit h the concept of method, it is clear that some approaches and
methods are unlikely to be widely adopted. The reason is that maybe they are difficult to
understand and use, lack pract ical application, require special training, and necessitate
changes in teachers pract ices and beliefs (Richards & Rodgers, 2001, p. 247). The
Iranian educational system also poses no except ion.
3. Historical Background of English Education in Iran
EFL teachers in Iran have used a variet y of approaches, methods and techniques at
different times. That is why one could not draw a clear-cut line to dist inguish periods
during which a specific teaching method was applied. Alt hough a certain method might
widely be used during a specific period o f t ime, so me features and techniques o f other
teaching methods could also be observed at the same time.
Rahimi (1996) demonstrates that Grammar-Translat ion Method (GTM) was used in
1950s all over the country. Saadat (1995) points out that in 1960s Audio-Lingual Method
(ALM) was put into practice in English language classes in Iran, similar to those of other
countries. Both Saadat (1995) and Rahimi (1996) claim that GTM was used in most of the
English classes in Iran. According to Musavi (2001) teaching English in Iranian high
schools was more grammar based and teachers put more stress on teaching grammar rather
than teaching reading co mprehensio n and co mmunicat ive skills. Correspondingly, Norozi
Khiyabani believes that the structural and grammar-translation methods of teaching are
already most common in Iran, and change is resisted (cited in Razmjo & Riazi, 2006).
Fo llowing these, the present study aims to characterize the usual language teaching
methods applied in Iran and to discuss the role and use o f each o f them in EFL
environment in brief.
3.1 Grammar Translation
Grammar translat ion method known as "GTM" is the method in which nearly all
phases o f the lesson emplo y the use of students L1 and translat ion techniques. As CelceMurcia (1991) believes, in GTM there is litt le use of the target language and instruction is
given in the nat ive language of the students (p. 6). The instruction is generally structural
and the pedagogical focus is, consequent ly, on the grammat ical features of English
(Hadavi zade, Temizel, 2010).
In addit ion, the process o f evaluat ion occurred when students could translate the
readings to the first language and if they knew enough to translate especially selected and
prepared exercises from the first to the second language (Chastain, 1988, p. 87).
It seems that this method has had strong popularity amo ng EFL learners around the world.
Yet there are so me negative po ints counted for it. First, researchers in linguist ics have
proved that to speak any language, whether nat ive or foreign, entirely by rule is quite
impossible. The persons who have learned a fo reign or second language through this
method find it difficult to give up the habit o f first thinking in their first language and then
translat ing their ideas into the second language. Therefore, failing to become proficient in
the second language, at a level near that of the first language, is the main problem in
Iranian schools.
Vol-1, Issue-3
ISSN: 2308-5460
Second, in this method, instead of presenting through the texts of second language,
emphasis is given on learning grammat ical rules and vocabulary is organized at bilingua l
lists which should be memorized. GTM places emphasis on reading and writ ing, while
neglect ing speech (Rahimi and Sahragard, 2008). It has been observed that in a class, in
which English is taught through this method, learners listen to the first language more than
that to the second/foreign language. Since language learning invo lves habit format ion such
students fail to acquire a habit of speaking English (Krashen & Terrell, 1983:130).
Third, as there is do minance o f GTM, group learning is the most neglected activit ies
in Iranian foreign language classrooms. Students have been taught individually t hroughout
their educat ional life and they are not accustomed to group norms. This problem may not
have a significant effect in learning other subjects.
Despite all those mentioned disadvantages, as Krashen & Terrel (1983) believe, by
applying GTM, the best results will be achieved in written exams where learners are able
to spend more time answering the quest ions by referring to their grammat ical knowledge
which roles have been emphasized by their teachers. Besides, most of Iranian expert
teachers and instructors confirm that GTM is their commo n teaching approach
(Khodamoradi, 1997).
3.2 Behaviorism and the Audio-Lingual Method
This approach to language learning advised learners to be taught a language direct ly,
without using the students' native language to explain new words/grammar in the target
language. However, the audio-lingual method (ALM) didnt focus on teaching vocabulary,
nor tried to teach grammat ical rules direct ly. In fact, they made a bid to achieve the
accurate sentences via abstract approach and more practices (Harmer, 2001). The main
hypothesis o f this method is based on behaviorist theory, that learning second language
could be trained through a system o f reinforcement (Butzkamm& Caldwell, 2009).
Therefore, language learning invo lves habit formation and learning a habit will be created
by persuading student to do it, and correct use o f a trait would receive posit ive feedback
while incorrect use of that would receive negat ive feedback.
The students' nat ive language has had a variet y of funct ions nearly in all teaching
methods except in Direct Method and Audio lingualism. Those methods had their
theoretical underpinnings in structuralis m and assumed language learning to be a
process of habit format ion, wit hout considering the students background knowledge and
their linguist ic abilit ies in their L1. In addit ion, no attention was given to humanist ic views
of teaching (Bagheri, 1994). Rahimi (1996: 9) ment ioned that ALM was not successful in
Iranian English classes because of the factors like shortage of qualified teachers, teaching
aids, time, etc.
Alt hough the audio-lingual method is said to have produced very productive students,
not all the set patterns meet the needs and interests of learners, and therefore a large part of
pattern practice seem ho llow and even useless. They can easily slip away fro m memory
and thus it is not as effect ive as it sounds (Jin yi Xu, 2003).
3.3 Communicative Language Teaching
The co mmunicat ive approach, most ly referred to as CLT has an extensive definit io n
that covers a large range of needs and demands. For instance, it varies depending on the
age and needs o f learners. This approach , through which judicious use of the students'
Vol-1, Issue-3
ISSN: 2308-5460
nat ive language is permitted in co mmunicat ive language teaching (Larsen, Freeman, 2000,
p.132), has survived into the new era of language teaching methodologies because o f its
referring to a diverse set of principles that can be used to support a wide variet y of
classroom procedures and several contemporary teaching approaches such as contentbased instruction, cooperative language learning, and task-based instruction can all claim
to be applications of them. Many CLT teachers maintain that the best way for learners to
achieve native like control of the target language is to think in that language rather than to
translate or reprocess the target language into their mother tongue. According to Brown
(2000: 29), communicative goals are best achieved by giving attention to language use and
not just usage, to fluency and not just accuracy, to authent ic language and contexts, and to
the students eventual need to apply classroom learning to unrehearsed contexts in the real
world.
CLT supporters have always claimed that the exposure to the target language so lves
the problem and thats the best way to learn a second/foreign language. However, there are
lots of linguists and teachers thinking otherwise. They believe that without a firm
knowledge of grammar in the target language, learners cannot produce meaningfu l
sentences. Besides, free reading, without teachers intervent ion and feedback, doesnt
produce competent English users and indispensible asset for English proficiency wit hout
which learners possess nothing more than a selection of everyday phrases adequate for
basic greetings and so on. But these will be deficient when learners are required to
perform any kind of sophist icated linguist ic task (Brown, 2000).
In spite o f the negat ive aspects, it seems that the non-grammar approach has gained
growth worldwide and CLT came into the mainstream in EFL teaching methodologies.
Considering the above facts, it seems that teacher training programs were unsuccessful in
helping Iranian teachers to change their previous methodology. The adopted methodology
today is believed to be eclect ic and focuses on communicat ive approaches to language
teaching. Yet, because of teachers pract ices in the classroom, it is more likely a grammar
translat ion method (Razmjoo & Riazi, 2006). Therefore, the present study invest igates the
foreign language teaching defic iencies and foreign language methodology deficiencies in
Iranian classrooms. Using separate questionnaires, designed for language teachers and
learners, the paper strives to find answer to the fo llowing quest ionsConcerning teachers:
A1. What is the teachers general evaluat ion of the students English abilit y?
A2. What do the teachers think about the students difficult ies in the four language skills?
A3. What are the major causes of the students learning difficult ies?
A4. What are the methods that the teachers use in teaching English?
Concerning students:
B1. What is the students self-evaluat ion of their English abilit y?
B2. What are the students learning difficult ies regarding the four language skills?
B3. Which strategies do the students prefer in learning English?
4. Methodology
4.1 Participants
This research invest igated the language attitudes and motivations o f universit y
students enrolled in general English courses at IAUO, Iran. The subjects were the students
Vol-1, Issue-3
ISSN: 2308-5460
majoring in various engineering disciplines during the academic year of 2012. From the
accessible the populat ion, a convenient sample of 150 Iranian universit y students
responded to the items of the BALLI. The reason for select ing these students was based on
availabilit y and also because the participants in the study were the researcher's students for
2 consecutive semesters and she had adequate informat ion about their language
background.
Moreover, all of the 8 accessible English teachers, who teach both general and
technical English courses as lecturers at IAUO, were asked to take part in the study. In
terms o f teaching experience, two teachers have been teaching for more than 15 years and
others have experience of at least 10 years and all of them had M. A. degrees in Teaching
English language/ English literature.
4.2 Instruments
To conduct this study two sets of questionnaires, for the students and for the teachers,
were emplo yed in line with the object ives o f the study. Not many, direct ly related, studies
have been made in this very aspect. Therefore, the researcher made use of a previous
versio n of Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory (BALLI), ESL student version
(Horwitz, 1987), modified it so that it matches the cultural and pedagogical backgrounds
in Iran, and can be useful for the present research.
The first questionnaire aimed to explore the universit y teachers teaching approaches,
their viewpo ints about the students abilit y and their learning difficult ies to see how the
educational system and the teachers can help students.
In the second quest ionnaire, the students were asked to answer so me general questions
about their genders, majors, length o f English learning and their academic marks. Then,
they were asked to answer quest ions regarding how they learn English and what their
learning difficult ies are. In addit ion, they were als o asked to answer what approaches they
felt useful for them and their expectations about learning English.
4.3 Procedures
Students were asked to fill out the forms within 45 minutes in the class. There are six
hundred and eight y engineering students in total in the target universit y. Four classes were
rando mly selected to represent the four diffe rent engineering departments in the
universit y. The one hundred and fift y subjects were required to answer the 35-items
questionnaire designed in two five scale Likert and writ ing parts in the classroom.
The teacher quest ionnaire was conducted via email. They answered the quest ionnaires and
sent back the files to the researcher as soon as they had finished the task. The Time
parameter wasnt regarded important in this research. All the eight English teachers gave
back the answered quest ionnaires.
4.4 Results
The data in the study were co llected from the teachers and the students and are analyzed in
the fo llowing section. Each research quest ion is answered according to the result and
discussed thoroughly.
4.4.1 Results Based on Teachers Perception
Question A1: What is the teachers evaluation of the students English ability?
The teachers responses to this indicate their view about the general English
proficiency of the students in IAUO. No teachers consider the students English abilit y to
Vol-1, Issue-3
ISSN: 2308-5460
be good (0%). More than half o f the teachers think the students abilit y is not good that is
ident ified by the scale 5-4 in t he quest ionnaire (56%). About one third o f the teachers
think that their abilit y is average that equals to scale 3-2 (31%). Two teachers indicated
that students English abilit y is extremely good or bad indicated by scales 5 and 1 in the
questionnaire (13%). Generally speaking, in the teachers perspect ive, the students
English abilit y is not very good. Results are illustrated in the figure 1.
Question A2: What do the teachers think about the students difficulties in the four
language aspects?
According to the teachers responses, the students have more problems in writ ing
(40.91%) and speaking (31.27%) English. In comparison, the teachers think the students
have fewer difficult ies in listening (18.18%) and reading (9.64%) to English as illustrated
in the figure 2.
Question A3. What are the major causes of the students learning difficulties?
Based on teachers responses, figure 3 shows that students poor English abilit y is
most ly due to (1) a bad foundat ion (45%), (2) improper ways o f learning (35%) and (3)
weak motivat ion (17%). These three reasons make up 97% of their difficult ies, and are
related to the students personal pedagogic factors. In part icular, the students poor
foundat ion makes up the highest percentage. This shows that universit y students are
generally troubled by their shallow foundat ion.
In addit ion, all of the teachers agree that their litt le contact with English nat ive
speakers is another crucial factor. Only 3% of the teachers think that the students learning
difficult ies are due to their family background, low IQ or improper ways of teaching. This
means that factors such as family, IQ, or the school is not a decisive factor. The biggest
challenge for the teachers is that the students personal unpedagogic factors such as a poor
foundat ion and weak motivat ion may interfere wit h their English learning. The teachers
have to make more efforts trying to reinforce their foundat ion, raise their mot ivation, and
correct their improper ways of learning.
Vol-1, Issue-3
10
ISSN: 2308-5460
Question A4: What methods do the teachers use?

The teachers seem to prefer the tradit ional ways of teaching. Half o f the teachers,
participated in the study, explain the main idea of reading materials in Persian (44%); 26%
of the teachers translate the texts into Persian word by word. These two approaches are
more tradit ional in co mparison wit h the others. They together constitute 70% of the
teaching approaches the teachers use. The reason why the teachers adopt the tradit ional
methods seems to be that the students are used to the teacher-centered style and so met imes
teachers have no cho ice but to satisfy the students demands.
In addit ion, the teachers implement some interactive act ivit ies in the classrooms. The y
make use o f group discussio ns (15%), have the students search for relevant informat ion on
the Net (4%), and have the students do role-play activit ies (7%). Not many teachers would
interact with the students on the Net (1%). These approaches related to interactive
activit ies const itute 27% of the regular classroom time. This shows that doing interact ive
activit ies in universit ies is not that commo n.
The teachers also use peer assistance (1%). Less than one-tenth of the teachers have
their students practice explaining the contents (2%). Sometimes students have problems
but they dare not ask their teachers. Using peer assistance can relieve students fear of
teachers. Having students stand on the stage to lecture can accelerate their progress. Not a
single teacher explains the texts totally in English. This means that using English
completely is not commo n or not popular amo ng the teachers. Look at figure 4 to follow
the results.
4.4.2 Results Based on Students Perception
Question B1: What is the students self-evaluation of their English abilities?
According to the students responses to this question, 44% of the students think their
English abilit y is so-so. There are 34% of the students who think their English is average,
but can be improved. About one-fift h o f the students consider their English to be very poor
(21%); only two students think their English is very good (1%).
Generally speaking, the students think their English is not very good but they expect to
improve their English abilit y. Both the teachers and the students share a co mmo n view
about the students English abilit y. Figure 5 illustrates the results.
Vol-1, Issue-3
11
ISSN: 2308-5460
Question B2: What are the students learning difficulties regarding the four language
skills?
As demonstrated in figure 6, the students think their reading skill is the best (40%).
The other three skills, listening, speaking, and writing make up 20%, 26% and 14%,
respectively. The reading skill gets a much higher evaluat ion than the other three ones.
This means that the students think their listening, speaking, and writ ing skills need
improving.
According to the students responses, the students think they have the greatest
difficult y in writ ing English and also have problems in their listening and speaking skills.
On the other hand, they are quite confident about their reading abilit y. This shows that
these three skills, besides reading, are their major problems. Grammar and vocabulary are
crucial for the four language skills. The two items which together const itute 53% of their
problems pose a big problem for universit y students because the two factors are the most
fundamental elements in learning English. Teachers should focus more on grammat ical
explanat ion and expanding their lexicon.
Question B3: What strategies do the students prefer in learning English?
Figure 7 represents that the students prefer the tradit ional way o f teaching: the teacher
can explain grammat ical rules by means o f deduction (27%) and translate the texts into
Persian word by word (39%). They want their teachers to remind them o f every
grammat ical rule. They seem to have got used to the method and this may co mpensate for
their poor grammat ical foundat ion. Another point is that they aim to be prepared for their
major goal that is by all means to get over the Universit y Entrance Exam (UEE).
Likewise, 28% of the teachers adopt the teacher-centered teaching methods. Both the
teachers and the students prefer the traditional method, which seems to be the most
acceptable approach in the classroom. Using the language lab (18%) is also one of the
students preferred activit ies that include English media to learn English.
Group discussio n (10%) is also popular amo ng the students. In co mparison wit h the
teachers survey, 15% of the teachers include group discussio n in the class. There is one
thing worth ment ioning. Only 6% of the students like their teachers to give many exams or
to ask them to answer questions in the class. They may feel shy or embarrassed if they
dont know the answer.
Figure: 7 Strategies the students most prefer
Vol-1, Issue-3
12
ISSN: 2308-5460
To sum up, the specific viewpo ints of both EFL teachers and learners o f the study are
reviewed here. Fro m the teachers po int of view, teaching universit y students is
frustrating. The tradit ional teacher-centered method is the most acceptable for the students.
Grammat ical explanat ion and lexical translat ion of the texts are the two mostly demanded
and applied teaching strategies in the classroom.
From the viewpo int of the students, every pheno menon in language must come to
grammar for its final judgment. Most of them are rule-ridden while they are learning
English in the classroom. Its no wonder they are better at grammar-based tests. For them,
passing on knowledge is one o f the basic professio nal obligat ions o f a teacher, and
learning English means listening to a teachers lecture, explanat ion, and translat ion. They
believe that learners English proficiency is built on the teachers lectures rather than on
their own pract ice. They also use L1 permanent ly wit hin the classroom. This has been a
traditional way of learning for most people as Jin yi Xu (2003) claims.
5. Discussion
The paper attempted to offer an overview o f the Iranian EFL classrooms based on the
teachers and students individual responses. However, the two teaching and learning
problems seem to be, somehow, interwoven, since the class achievement needs the
interact ion of both teachers and students in all learning activit ies. In the fo llowing
sect ions, the main results o f the study are discussed crit ically under the fo llowing
headlines as the recognized EFL teaching and learning problems:
5.1 Teacher-Centeredness
One interest ing point in the findings o f the research quest ions A4, B3 denotes both
teachers and students prefer to apply more teacher-centered approach that is a co mponent
of most traditional methodologies, in spite o f the fact that present day classrooms need to
be more student-oriented, activit y-based and demanding in practice. Besides, they require
teachers to be more responsive, spontaneous and crit ical to create and maintain a
classroom environment serving the learners needs (Newton, 2002, as cited in Nasir &
Abdul Majid Khan, 2006).
So, it is t ime for Iranian EFL environment to shift toward more interactive
approaches. The case is not to simply choose between GTM and CLT, but to apply more
task-integrated approaches. Cazden (2001) claimed that the previous pattern of classroom
discourse has been the default pattern or the unmarked one which seems to be natural at
least to some teachers (p. 53). In this pattern the learners are often limited to a responding
role with only one chance of speaking and there may be few opportunities for learners to
practice co mmunicat ive strategies (Jia, 2005). Cazden (2001) also raised the awareness of
Vol-1, Issue-3
13
ISSN: 2308-5460
more marked, non-default patterns of teacher-student interaction which reflect differences

in educat ional purposes for talk; number of part icipants; medium of interact ion (electronic
mail instead of oral); and cultural differences amo ng students.
5.2 L1 Use in Classroom
It seems that Iranian EFL learners find it difficult to communicate freely in the target
language after seven years they have been taught English in schools and universit y, as the
results of responses to research quest ions A2, B2 shows the students weakness in
listening and speaking act ivit ies, and quest ions B2, B3 that denote the preferences of both
teachers and students in using L1 and translat ion during class.
A lot of research projects have been conducted to see whether EFL teachers should use
their students first language or allow them to do so and to what extent. One commo n
belief held amo ng the opponents of L1 use is that L2 learners often have litt le or no
exposure to the target language outside the classroom. It fo llows, therefore, that teachers
should not spend this valuable classroom time using L1. The second important argument
that led translat ion to have bad name was the fear of interference errors (Haltai, 1989:
288). The argument is that translat ion fosters a sense of false equivalence between the two
languages result ing in the inter-language errors (Cook 2002). Gowers and Walters (1983)
in their Teaching Practice Handbook, for example, clearly describe the dangers o f
translat ion in encouraging structural or lexical equivalences.
5. 3 UEE Dominancy
The success of any act ion usually depends on the extent to which individuals strive to
attain their purpose, along wit h their desire to do so. According to Gardner, learning will
not be accessible wit hout motivat ional factors (Gardner and Lambert, 1959 cited in
Dornyei, 2001; p49). Hadavi zade claims the most significant factors of not being
mot ivated in learning a second language amo ng Iranian learners is that there is no
eagerness, enthusiasm and desire toward learning a second language. The majorit y o f the
participants agreed that there is no need and necessit y o f learning another language in
Iranian societ y. The emphasis on universit y entrance exams (UEE) has always outweighed
other reasons that require co mmunicat ive skills (Hadavi Zade, 2010). This is reproved
here by the responses of the research participants to the questions A2, A4, B2 and B3, and
is also in line wit h Ghorbani (2008) who stated that Iranian high school teachers generally
and pre-universit y teachers specially think that they should prepare the students for
acceptation in the universit y entrance exam by having them to translate English to Persian
texts. He added that the common method of teaching in schools is GTM, and they try to
improve the skills such as reading at the sacrifice of listening, speaking, and writ ing
(Ghorbani, 2008, cited in Jafari Laasaki, 2010).
Similarly, Jahangard (2007) reported that the teachers give fewer minds to oral drills
like listening and speaking abilit ies in the classrooms, and they more emphasize reading,
writing, grammar, and vocabulary. The only concern is to make students pass tests and
exams since productive skills are not tested in the UEE (Jafari Laasaki, 2010). And maybe
the same purpose forces universit y students to prepare for higher educat ion EEs.
5. 4 Textbooks and materials
Language development must occur in the context of social interact ion which doesnt
exist in Iranian EFL context. Wei (2007) called EFL environments as input-poor
Vol-1, Issue-3
14
ISSN: 2308-5460
environments and suggested that in such environment vocabulary knowledge, to be of real

use, must be integrated into discourse. Since learning words individually doesnt
necessarily take care o f other aspects of co mmunicat ion co mpetence, English textbooks
can play a crucial ro le in this regard. Therefore, teachers should be more sensit ive in
select ing proper textbooks and reference materials to reinforce the students four linguist ic
skills.
Studies show that basic language skills are generally taught in iso lat ion in a very rigid
order in our countrys schools. However, it has been recognized that we generally use
more than one skill at a time, leading to more integrated exercises. However, most Englis h
textbooks in our country lack enough integrated exercises. For instance, speaking is a skill
that often is underrepresented in our countrys tradit io nal classrooms. This could be due to
the fact that it is considered a less-academic skill than writ ing. It is transient and
improvised and unfortunately, when modeling a dialogue sentence for students to repeat,
the teacher not only gives an oral L1 equivalent for unknown words or phrases, but repeats
the foreign language phrase before students imitate it (Hesani, 2001, Karami &
Salehizadeh, 2007)
In a related study, Razmjoo (2007) evaluates and co mpares the degree o f fulfillment of
communicat ive language teaching principles of high-school and private school textbooks,
and draws several important conclusio ns. He asserts that on the basis o f the results and
findings o f the study CLT principles are not utilized in the Iranian high school
textbooks. He further emphasizes that high school textbooks, which are reading and
grammar based, do not fit EFL co mmunicat ive teaching and therefore do not meet
language learners co mmunicat ive needs (Razmjoo, 2007, p. 12). Finally, grammar
teaching methods in our countrys textbooks are based on paternal practices and
comparat ive approach which lack dynamics and decrease language learners motivat ion
(Bakhshi, 1994).
6. Conclusion
What is the most effect ive teaching methodology has always been the topic of
research for language teachers. When structural approach considered being responsible for
the incompetence in co mmunicat ive use o f English, the teaching path led to
communicat ive approach, wit h the former almo st discarded. Iranian EFL environment also
experienced such a conflict to decide whether the GTM best suits its educat ional planning
or the CLT, and in the long last ing remit s, it has hesitatingly taken so me characterist ics
and strategies of both the structural and co mmunicative one, despite the growing pain in
the neck that bothers not only language learners but also teachers.
In contrast to all the previous challenges to choose between the two, one can find
out these two as not actually two opposing extremes, but two ends on a spectrum, ranged
over by various values, situat ions, demands, approaches and strategies that requires
teachers to use creative ideas and materials to make the best of the present input poor
condit ion ruling over our EFL environment. We need more in-service educat ional
workshops for language teachers to share ideas, see and learn fro m co lleagues
experiences, and update their knowledge and mo ve toward more integrative, interact ional
and act ivit y based approaches. Therefore, more research projects are required to get
conducted on how integrated skilled approaches would work in Iranian EFL societ y.
Vol-1, Issue-3
15
ISSN: 2308-5460
According to Dornyei (2007, p. 730) as long as we are aware of the vast repertoire o f
techniques that are at our disposal, it is up to us to choose the specific ones that we will
apply, based on the specific needs that arise in our concrete circumstances.
About the Author:
Arezoo Molavi Vardanjani ho ld Masters degree in linguist ics and serves as a facult y
member in the Islamic Azad Universit y, Omidiyeh branch, Iran. The authors teaching
and research interests include- ELT, TEFL, Linguist ics and Applied Linguist ics.
Vol-1, Issue-3
16
ISSN: 2308-5460
Works Cited:
Bagheri, H. (1994). A Profile for Teaching and Teaching English in Pre-universit y,
Schools of Sistan and Baluchistan: Problems and Solut ions, Unpublished M. A.
Thesis, Shiraz Universit y, Shiraz.
Bakhshi, R. K. (1991). Indian English. English Today, 7, 3(27), 43-46.
Brown, H. D. (2000), Teaching by Principles (2nd ed.) Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle
Publishers.
Brumfit & Johnson, (1979). The Communicative Approach to Language Teaching.
Oxford: Oxford Universit y Press.
Celce-Murcia, M. (1991).Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language, (2nd ed.).
New York. Newbury House Publishers.
Celce-Marcia, M. (2001). Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language. Boston,
Massachusetts: Heinel & Heinel Publishers, a Divisio n of Wadsworth, Inc.
Chastain, K. (1988). Developing Second Language Skills: Theory to Practice (3rd ed.).
San Diego, CA: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
Cook, V. (1991). Second Language Learning and Language Teaching. London: Edward
Arno ld, a Divis ion o f Hodder & Stoughton.
Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language o f teaching and learning.
Netherlands: Heinemann Educat ional Books.
Dubin, F. & Olshtain, E. (1986). Course Design. Cambridge: Cambridge Universit y Press.
Dornyei, Z. (2007). Creating a motivat ing classroom environment. In J. Cummins & Ch.
Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching (pp. 719731). New York: Springer Science + Business Media, Inc.
Dornyei, Z . (2001). Teaching and Researching Motivation. Essex: Pearsons education
Limited.
Fries, C. C. (1945). Teaching and learning English as a foreign language. Ann Arbor, MI:
The Universit y o f Michigan Press.
Ghorbani, M. R. (2008). The Washback Effect of the Universit y Entrance Examinat ion on
Iranian English Teachers' Curricular Planning, the Iranian EFL Journal, 2, 60-87.
Gouin, F. (1880). Lart denseigner et d etudier les langes. Paris: Librairie Fischbacher.
Hadavi zade A. , Temizel A. , (2010). An Investigation Towards Motivat ional Strategies
In Oral Co mmunicat ional Skills in Iranian EFL Classrooms, Seluk niversitesi
Sosyal Bilimler Enstits Dergisi, 24 / 2010
Horwitz, E.K. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning universit y foreign
language students. The Modern Language Journal, 72(iii), 283-294.
Jafari Laasaki, F., (2012), The Washback Effect of Universit y Entrance Examinat ion
(UEE) on Iranian High School EFL Pedagogy, The Iranian EFL Journal, Vol 8,
Issue 3, ISSN 1836-8743, p(259-284).
Jahangard, A. (2007). Evaluat ion of EFL materials taught at Iranian public high schools.
The Asian EFL Journal, 9 (2), 130-150.
Jia, A. (2005). Feedback in the IRF discourse model in foreign language classroom. SinoUS English Teaching, 2 (7), 25-29.
Jiang, Y. (2003). English as a Chinese language. English Today, 19(2), 3-8.
Kamal R. Mourtaga, (2010), Poor Writ ing in English: A Case of the Palest inian EFL
Vol-1, Issue-3
17
ISSN: 2308-5460
learners in Gaza strip, first nat ional TEFL conference, Al-Quds Open Universit y,
Palest ine.
Kariminia Amin & Salehi zade Shahram, (2007), Communication strategies: English
Language departments in Iran, Journal of Language Studies (IJLS), Vol. 1(4),
2007 ( pp. 287- 300) .
Khodamoradi, A. (1997). Current misconcept ions in language teaching in EFL classes in
Iran, Foreign Language Teaching Journal, No 4, VOL 24: 40.
Krashen, S. D. and Terrell. T. (1983). The Natural Approach Language Acquisition in the
Classroom. Oxford: Pergamon.
Larsen-Freeman, (2000). Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. (2nd ed.)
Oxford: Oxford Universit y Press.
Lee, Y. (2007). Third turn posit ion in teacher talk: Contingency and the work of
teaching. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 180 206.
Lih-wen Sue (2004). A Study of Vocational High School Students EFL Difficult ies and
the Solut ions Based on National Tainan Commercial and Vocational Senior
High School, A Thesis for Master of Arts Graduate Inst itute of Foreign
Languages and Literature National Cheng Kung
Universit y. http://www.tncvs.tn.edu.tw/englishteachingweb/teacherstuff/sullivan/files
/thesis07 19. Pdf
McCarthy, M. 1991. Discourse analysis for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge
Universit y Press.
Musavi , Z. (2001). An Overview of the TEFL Situation in Various Countries, http://www.
asahi- net.or.jp/ykt/overview4. html.
Nasir, M., & Abdul Majid Khan, R. (2006). Constructivist classroom: Elements of class
discourse as measure of constructivist practice. Bulletin of Education & Research,
28(1), 23- 34.
Newton, 2002, as cited in Nasir & Abdul Majid Khan, 2006).
Rahimi, A., & Sahragard, R. (2008). Vocabulary learning can be fun. . California
Linguistic Notes, 33(2),1-33.
Rahimi, M. (1996). The study o f English Language Instruction at the Secondary Schools
Of the Isfahan Province, Unpublished M. A. Thesis, Shiraz Universit y, Shiraz.
Razmjoo, A. (2007). High schools or private institutes textbooks? Which fulfill
communicative language teaching principles in the Iranian context? Asian EFL
Journal, 9, 1-16.
Razmjoo S. A. & Riazi A. M., (2006), On the Teaching Methodology of Shiraz EFL
Institutes, Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities of Shiraz University, Vol. 23,
No. 1, Spring 2006 (SER. 46)
Richards, J. C. & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching.
(2nd ed). Cambridge: Cambridge Universit y Press.
Richards, J. (1984). The secret life o f methods. TESOL Quarterly,18(1), 7 23.
Ruixue, M., Zejun, M., Yijing, W. (2012). An Empirical Study on Speaking Proficiency
Training for Chinese EFL Learners, Higher Education of Social Science , Vol. 2,
No 1 (2012): 26-31
Saadat, M. (1995). An Invest igat ion into the Problems of Teaching and Learning English
Vol-1, Issue-3
18
ISSN: 2308-5460
In the Guidance and High Schools of Fars Province. Unpublished M. A. Thesis.

Shiraz Universit y, Shiraz.
Wei, M., (2007). The Interrelatedness of Affective Factors in EFL Learning: An
Examination o f Motivat ional Patterns in Relat ion to Anxiet y in China, TESL- EJ
Vol: 11, No. 1.
Wilkins, D. (1976). Notional syllabuses. Oxford: Oxford Universit y Press.
Xiao-hui, X. (2010). Analys is of teacher talk on the basis o f relevance theory. Canadian
Social Science, 6(3), 45-50.
Vol-1, Issue-3
19
ISSN: 2308-5460
Table of Contents
Sr.
No
Paper Title / Author(s) / Country
Pages
1
2
Editorial
A Crit ical Study of Iranian EFL Environment
-Arezoo Molavi Vardanjani, Iran
Adaptable Analyt ical Vistas Illumine a Touchstone: Langston Hughes
as Minor Author/Poet
-Mzenga A. Wanyama, USA
An Explorat ion of English Language Teaching Pedagogy in
Secondary Yemeni Educat ion: A Case Study
-Yehia Ahmed Y. Al-Sohbani, Yemen
Applied ELT: A Paradigm Just ifying Co mplex Adaptive System of
Language Teaching?
-Masoud Mahmoodzadeh, Iran
Brit ishness and Co mmunit y Cohesio n in Muslim News Online
-Hassen ZRIBA, Tunisia
Building an EFL Curriculum for Young Learners: A Brazilian
experience
-Telma Gimenez & Juliana Reichert Assuno Tonelli, Brazil
Communicat ion Strategies between Chinese Employers and their
Basotho Emplo yees
-Ko lobe Mabo leba, Lesotho
Cross-cultural Co mparison of Non-native Speakers' Refusal Strategies
in English
-Mehmet ASMALI, Turkey
Cross-Linguist ic Influence in Third Language Acquisit io n:
Acquis it ion of syntactic structures by students Bilingual in PersianAzerbaijani, Persian-Armenia, and Persian-Gilaki
-Farzaneh Khodabandeh, Iran
Invest igat ing the Difficult ies and Problems Faced by the English
Language Students of Al Quds Open Universit y in Legal Translation
Process
-Ahmed Maher Mahmoud Al-Nakhalah, Palestine
Teaching English Accept ing Mult iple Intelligence Types through Arts
Ivana CIMERMANOV, Slovakia
The Poet as Translator: The Poetic Vision of John Betjeman
-Wisam Khalid Abdul Jabbar, Canada
The Socio linguist ic Status of Islamic English: A Register Approach
-Zaidan Ali Jassem, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Tragic Richness in the Major Novels of Tho mas Hardy
-V. Sudhakar Naidu, Libya
03
04- 19
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
Vol-1, Issue-3
20- 39
40- 55
56- 71
72- 87
88- 97
98- 105
106- 128
129- 156
157- 175
176- 183
184- 194
195- 205
206- 216

A Critical Study of Iranian EFL Environment

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

A Critical Study of Iranian EFL Environment

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

International Journal of English Language and Translation Studies

Senior Associate Editors

Vol-1, Issue-3 October-Decem ber, 2013

International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies