MILITARY MANAGEMENT QUARTERLY

MILITARY MANAGEMENT QUARTERLY

Presenting the evaluation model for English Language Teaching program tailored to the Iranian Army's Universities through CIPP model

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors
Mehdi Kousha 1
Alireza Ameri 2
ahmad mohseni 3
1 language research department islamic azad university south tehran branch
2 , Language Research Department Islamic Azad University, South Tehran Branch
3 islamic azad university south tehran branch
10.22034/iamu.2024.2026170.3038
Abstract
Due to the lack of a native model for evaluating the English language teaching program tailored to the context of Iranian Army’s Universities, the present study aims to design and present a structured, scientific, and responsive native model incorporates native and international dimensions, components and indicators. The study is applied in nature, falls within the framework of qualitative research with thematic analysis approach and is inductive in terms of implementation strategy Data collection was conducted using a combination of documentary methods (library studies, higher-level documents, educational guidelines, etc.), semi-structured interviews, and field methods (observation). The statistical population includes 10 experts with a history of educational responsibilities, 14 English language professors and 10 junior students of Iranian army’s universities who were selected purposefully. Based on the analysis of all the obtained data, the systematic evaluation model of the English language teaching program of the Iranian Army's universities, which the researchers call "Military CIPP Evaluation Model", includes 4 dimensions, respectively, the Context with four components (needs analysis, objectives, environmental conditions and educational obstacles and problems), Input with seven components (educational policy, training program, structured teaching method, structured evaluation method, resources and content, educational facilities and equipment, and budget), Process with six components (teaching-learning process, evaluation process, Management and leadership style, educational resources and content, teachers' performance and students' performance) and the Product with three components (the overall performance of the English language teaching program, the effectiveness and sustainability of the program and the satisfaction of the stakeholders of the program) were presented.
Keywords
English language teaching program
evaluation
CIPP evaluation model
Military CIPP evaluation model
  •  
  • Angelevski, S., Hadzi-Janev, M. (2114). Contemporary Challenges in the Military Education: Macedonian Military Academy in the Context. Journal Contemporary Military Challenges, 1202114 - 12 (2): p. 41 - 52
  • Clarke, V. & Braun, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
  • Djozo, K., Dimitrovska, A., Angeleski, S. (2014). Evaluation of the Contents of Military Education according to the Needs of the Contemporary Military Missions. International Scientific Conference, Records of Proceeding, (2): 541 – 53
  • Farhady, H., Hezaveh, F. S., & Hedayati, H. (2010). Reflections on Foreign Language Education in Iran. Tesl-ej, 13(4), n4.
  • Foroozandeh, E., Riazi, A., & Sadighi, F. (2007). TEFL program evaluation at master's level in Iran. Teaching English Language, 2(2), 71-100.
  • Gilman, E., Herold, D.E., eds., (2002). The Role of Military Education in the Restructuring of Armed Forces. NATO Defence College, Rome Gjozo.
  • Ipek, Ö. F. A. (2022). Systematic Review of Program Evaluation Studies in EFL: The Turkish Case. Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları, (25), 191-209.‏
  • Khubchandani, L. (2008). Language Policy and Education in the Indian Subcontinent. In Encyclopedia of Language and Education, 2nd Edition, 179-187. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
  • Kuzu, E., Özkan, Y., & Bada, E. (2021). An EFL program evaluation: a case from Turkey. The Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 21(1).‏
  • Kuzu, E. (2020). Evaluation of an English preparatory program through the context, input, process, and product (CIPP) model (Master's thesis, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü).
  • Laurel, R. D., Belting, A. C., & Almansouri, E. O. (2021). Evaluation of the English Language Teaching Program of the Faculty of Education, University of Benghazi Using the Peacock Model: Towards Quality Education. European Journal of Education Studies, 8(10), 237–256.
  • Lynch, B. K. (1990). A context adaptive model for program evaluation. TESOL quarterly, 24(1), 23-42.
  • McNamara, C. (2002). Basic guide to program evaluation. Retrieved May, 2013 from http://www.managementhelp.org/ evaluatn/fnl_eval.htm
  • Newcomer, K. E., Hatry, H. P., & Wholey, J. S. (2010). Planning and designing useful Handbook of practical program evaluation, Jossey-Bass, a Wiley Imprint 989 Market Street, San Francisco.
  • Peacock, M. (2009). The evaluation of foreign-language-teacher education programmes. Language Teaching Research, 13(3), 259–278.
  • Piccardo, E., North, B., & Maldina, E. (2019). Innovation and reform in course planning, teaching, and assessment: The CEFR in Canada and Switzerland, a comparative study. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics,22 (1),103-128.
  • Richards, J. C. (2013). Curriculum Approaches in Language Teaching: Forward, Central, and Backward RELC   Journal,           44(1),   5–33.
  • Rossi, P.H., Lipsey, M.W. & Freeman, H.E. (2004).Evaluation: a systematic approach. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Program_evaluation.
  • Sanders, J. R., & Sullins, C. D. (2006). Evaluating school programs: An evaluator’s Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press
  • Sopha, S., & Nanni, A. (2019). The CIPP model: Applications in language program evaluation. Journal of Asia TEFL, 16(4), 1360-1385.
  • Stufflebeam, D. L. (1971). The relevance of the CIPP evaluation model for educational accountability. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 19–25.
  • Stufflebeam, D. L. (2005). CIPP model (context, input, process, product). In S. Mathison (Ed.), Encyclopedia of evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Stufflebeam, D. L., and Shinkfield, A. J. (1985). Systematic evaluation. Boston: Kluwe Nijhoff.
  • Stufflebeam, D. L., & Shinkfield, A. J. (2007). Evaluation theory, models, & applications. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  • Stufflebeam, D. L., & Zhang, G. (2017). The CIPP evaluation model: How to evaluate for improvement and accountability. Guilford Publications.
  • ‏ Sukarni, S. (2022). The Context, Input, Process, and Product Evaluation Model on English Language Teaching at Public Health Study Program. IJECA (International Journal of Education and Curriculum Application), 5(3), 241-249.‏
  • Taheri, N., & Abbasian, G. (2016). Evaluation of Iranian TEFL MA program in terms of compatibility with common standards: Teachers' perspectives. ELT Voices-International Journal for Teachers of English, 6(1), 31-51.‏
  • Tyler, Ralph, W. (2013). Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction (W. Tyler, Ralph (ed.); 31st ed.). University of Chicago Press.
  • Uzun, L. (2016). Evaluation of the latest English language teacher training programme in Turkey: Teacher trainees’ perspective. Cogent Education, 3(1),‏
  • Warju, W. (2016). Educational program evaluation using CIPP model. INVOTEC, 12(1).