Sie sind auf Seite 1von 103

CHAPTER ONE

1.0

Introduction

1.1

Background to the study

As part of a tertiary institution, those in ELT will either belong to the power structure wielding
the control that comes with possession of the valued commodities of knowledge and expertise, or
they will be on the fringes doing just what those who hold power require them to do.
(Pennington: 1992, p20)
This study investigates issues influencing the effective development and implementation of
supplementary English language programmes at Pakistani colleges/universities. Having taught
English and communication courses at a number of Pakistani institutions over a period of 8
years, I have observed that the planning and implementation of English language courses and
induction of English language Teaching (ELT) faculty is a fairly arbitrary exercise. The dearth of
a recognizable curriculum framework at most Pakistani universities and the absence of consistent
faculty development has meant that the quality of ELT courses is frequently compromised.
This is a situation highlighted in the UNESCO report (1998) on curriculum design and
development at all strata of Pakistans educational sector which states that
some serving teachers are, of course, involved in curriculum development. But .
their contribution to the curriculum development is, for all practical purposes, nominal.
The main reason for this is that they lack the requisite expertise. The existing training
programmes provide little exposure in this area, and the teachers academic qualifications
do not necessarily contribute to curricular creativity. (1998, p 110)
Additional problems are caused by what the report further refers to as the lack of follow-up of
actual curriculum implementation in classroom practice in which
the curriculum actually implemented is generally different from the official curriculum
document. The classroom teacher, who primarily focuses on the textbooks and
assessment, does not take into account the educational objectives. No evaluation of the
implemented curriculum is carried out; hence no feedback is received to revise the
curriculum. In short, each of the steps in the curriculum development process, as outlined
above, tends to occur in isolation from the others and there is no visible coherent
curriculum development activity (my italics)
Within the Pakistani educational sector, the lack of visible coherent curriculum development
activity is compounded by a lack of a comprehensive vision and policy on teacher education to
elevate teaching into a full fledged professional status (ITACEC Teacher Education Position

Paper: 2004, p2). The absence of an agreed national minimum criteria for teacher education at
various levels of education (ibid, p5) and lack of a system for accreditation or for the regulation
of teacher standards within and across provinces (ibid, p15) also mean that the teaching
professionals receive little relevant training.
While the scope of these issues is very broad, the dissertation will be restricted to confirming
how the problems referred to impact the quality of supplementary English language programme
development and implementation at Pakistani Higher Education (HE) institutions.
1.2

Aims of the study and key ideas

The aim of this dissertation will be explicated through the following discussion. Language
programme development encompasses the interplay of interconnected elements and the effective
utilization of human and material resources. At the outset, it is important to clarify what the term
programme signifies in the context of this dissertation. English language and communication
courses offered at Pakistani universities conform to the definition offered by Weir and Roberts
(1994, p3) who describe programme as any organized educational activity offered on a
continuing basis. Henceforth, programme and course will be used interchangeably as the
difference in meaning is too nominal to merit distinction. Richards (1990, p1) attributes
the success of a language program to far more than the mere act of teaching and
contends that as with any successful educational program, a number of levels of
planning, development, and implementation are involved. Goals and objectives for the
program have to be developed as well as syllabuses and instructional materials.
Instructional strategies have to be determined, teachers selected and trained, and tests and
assessment procedures chosen, Once the program is in operation, procedures are needed
to enable the program to be monitored and its effects on learners and learning evaluated.
However, the act of planning, no matter how systematic, cannot substitute for the processes of
teaching and of learning which remain pivotal to the success of all educational programmes. In
Nunans (1988, p1) words the notion that planning equals teaching and that teaching equals
learning is nave; Nunan further stresses that the equation is much more complex than this.
Thus, programme development and teaching have to be carefully factored into an equation that
remains workable within a wide variety of language learning contexts.
In Pakistan, the English language has the status of an official language and is used as the
language of governmental correspondence. English is also the language of the corporate, medical
and other professional sectors. It is taught as a compulsory subject from at least Grade 5 onwards
2

in most parts of the country. At tertiary level, a number of institutions offer degrees in English
and related subjects. However, the study of the English language is not confined to linguistics or
literature. Tertiary institutions offering professional qualifications in fields such as medicine,
engineering, technology and management sciences incorporate English and related subjects as a
compulsory segment of their respective curricula. Depending on the academic focus of the
universities, English is taught in the form of modules such as communication skills, English
Language, Technical Communication and Business Communication. For the most part, these
modules are a degree requirement and are graded or at the very least require a Pass in the
concerned subject. The fact that English functions as the lingua franca of international
communication, commerce, science and technology and education and has an official status
within Pakistan has created an imperative for Pakistani HE institutions to emphasize the teaching
and learning of English skills within curricula in general.
Yet the quality of English language instruction and of the language learning environment varies
from institution to institution and in most cases from teacher to teacher. At most Pakistani
universities

which

do

not

offer

degrees

in

English,

the

peripheral

role

of

language/communication courses is in contrast to the actual importance of effective


communication for students and/or teachers. The quality of such courses is thus dependent upon
the efforts and calibre of individual teachers rather than upon nationally determined curriculum
guidelines.
For reasons discussed in section 1.1, it has come to be that certain curriculum processes are
overlooked to the detriment of the participants in the teaching and learning situation. The
primary difficulty arises with the process of assessing the learners needs. Most programmes are
designed with reference to the teachers assumptions about the learners needs with little or no
student input. While the teachers experience of learners is valuable, in order to draw valid
conclusions about students there is a need to seek data from other sources. Needs
assessment/analysis mechanisms ranging from questionnaires, tutorials to discussions prior to
and during the course are a valuable source of data about what the learners need and want from
the programme. This is not simply a matter of creating a learner friendly course but of creating a
successful programme.
Secondly, as universities expand, there is increasing demand for new English language teachers.
Most English language teachers in Pakistan have ELT qualifications but little experience in

teaching science or engineering or business communication. Post induction for teachers may be
more productive if support mechanisms such as mentoring or peer development programmes are
used for teacher development.
Thirdly, in order to assess whether the programme is succeeding and/or has been successful,
educational managers and practitioners at Pakistani universities need to look at whether existing
course evaluation mechanisms are adequate or not and if such procedures are not in place, to
establish evaluative mechanisms that can allow feedback from programme participants to shape
the programme as both an ongoing and summative exercise. The question of formative and
summative evaluation will be dealt with in section 3.4.3.
In view of the growing importance of the English Language for a country looking to achieve
economic revitalization via scientific and technological progress, Pakistans Higher Education
Commission (HEC) has launched a major project encapsulating English Language teaching
reforms the overall goal of which is to bring about a significant improvement in the learning and
teaching of English Language and research in the degree awarding institutions and universities of
Pakistan. The major themes for the plan of action for National Committee on English are Faculty
Development, Curriculum Development, Computer assisted language learning, Research and
publication, testing and evaluation and reorganization of English Language centres in
universities of Pakistan (HEC website).
Taking into account three of the major foci delineated above; namely, curriculum development
and evaluation and faculty development, this dissertation aims to investigate the curriculum
framework underscoring English language programmes at the tertiary level in Pakistan and the
respective roles of needs assessment, programme evaluation and faculty support structures.
1.3

Limitations and constraints

This study could have benefited from having a larger scope as the problems related to curriculum
development and implementation and faculty induction/development are common to all levels of
education as well as to disciplines across the spectrum. However it would not have been practical
to investigate the situation in its entirety within the scope of such a limited study. Although data
was collected from teachers and students in Pakistan, because I could not travel personally to
Pakistan for the purpose of data collection and due to the fact that most of the institutions were

closed for the summer, it was not possible to survey/interview as many respondents as would
have been desirable.

CHAPTER TWO
2.0

Research Methodology

2.1

Participants

While representative samples allow the obtaining of information from a segment of the
population for the purpose of generalizing back to the entire population (Ruane: 2005, p105), the
constraints involved in acquiring data from tertiary level teachers

teaching at different

institutions throughout Pakistan necessitates the employment of purposive sampling from a


specified population (Black:1993,p57).The participants of the research were 7 university level
teachers teaching/working at selected institutions and universities in the twin cities of
Rawalpindi and Islamabad and Lahore in Pakistan. The participants comprised both male and
female faculty members working at the National University of Sciences & Technology (NUST),
Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS) and the Curriculum Wing at the Ministry
of Education. Engineering, technology, management sciences and medicine are some of the core
disciplines offered at NUST. LUMS has two schools: the Suleman Dawood School of Business
and the School of Arts and Sciences which offer graduate and post graduate programmes in
management sciences and in computer science, computer engineering, mathematics, Law and
Economics respectively. One of the respondents was an English language specialist, with many
years of tertiary level teaching and administrative experience, employed at the Curriculum Wing
at the Ministry of Education in Pakistan. The teachers who participated in the survey were
experienced ELT professionals and therefore well placed to provide the data needed for the
dissertation.
A segment of the student population from NUST was selected for the administering of a
questionnaire to triangulate the research. The sample student population consisted of 20 male and
female undergraduate students studying engineering, information technology and management
studies at different NUST colleges/institutes. Each specialization/discipline has a corresponding
focus in terms of English/communication courses: this was planned to ensure that a greater range
of English courses were investigated for the purpose of the research. Respondents were also
chosen for the interviews (see section 2.6)

2.2

Instruments for data collection

The selection of the data gathering instruments was determined by the constraints of the research
context. Because the research location and the research subjects were at considerable
geographical distance and circumstances did not allow me to travel to Pakistan to collect the data
personally, I decided to use two separate questionnaires to collect data from the university
teachers and the students since questionnaires have the advantage of being economical and
convenient and open to dissemination over a wide geographical area (Neuman: 2000, p 271272). Questionnaires were also selected as a data gathering instrument since data could be
collected in the same, replicable way from a large number of informants and thus make
comparison of the results easier and the conclusions clearer (Wray, Trott & Bloomer: 1998,
p167).
2.3

The faculty questionnaire

The faculty questionnaire comprised 34 questions designed to elicit background information


about the respondents, their teaching/professional experience and their awareness of and
perceptions about faculty support structures, programme evaluation procedures and learner needs
assessment. Most of the questions were closed ended and fixed response although in relevant
sections respondent views/opinions were solicited through open ended questions (Neuman:
2000, p260). Both closed and open format questions were used because research literature shows
that while responses to closed questions are easier to collate and analyse, one often obtains more
useful information from open questions(my italics)- (Nunan:1992, p143).
2.4

The student questionnaire

The student questionnaire consisted of 15 questions. Students were not asked about faculty
support structures as these would be outside the domain of their experience and thus not yield
any meaningful data. This questionnaire contained mostly closed ended questions with fixed
responses to convenience the students whose knowledge of curriculum development and
evaluation is usually implicit rather than explicit. The first five questions were concerned with
discovering

the students gender, age, academic programme, experience of English courses at

the HE level and the function/role of English e.g. whether it is studied as a first language etc.
Questions 6 to 8 focused on the learners experience/perceptions of needs assessment/analysis.

Questions 9 to 15 were concerned with different aspects of course evaluation as the students
know and experience it.
2.5

Faculty interviews

Because questionnaires are characterised by certain limitations such as a low response rate the
researchers lack of control over the conditions under which a questionnaire is completed or the
inability of the researcher to observe the setting or the respondents reactions to questions
(Neuman: 2000, p272) and because they are best used in association with other types of data
elicitation so that a fuller picture of the data can be accessed (Wray, Trott & Bloomer: 1998,
p167), interviewing was chosen as a supplementary data collection instrument. In the
conventional view the interview conversation is framed as a potential source of bias, error,
misunderstanding or misdirection, a persistent set of problems to be controlled(Holstein &
Gubrium: 1997, p113). However, it is the interactional nature of the interview situation which
gives it the adaptability (Bell: 1999, p135) that can enable the researcher to gain information
that a written response would conceal (ibid).
The interviewees were curriculum developers and/or staff development experts. The semi
structured interview (Nunan: 1992, p149) was used as it is relevant to the research to let topics
and issues rather than questions determine the course of the interview (ibid). The data collected
from the interview

was analysed with close reference to the data generated through the

questionnaires so as to gain an overall perspective of the situation and of ways to overcome any
dissonance which may be detected within language course development and implementation
practices in Pakistans HE institutions.
2.6

Procedure

To conduct the research, I designed and piloted a faculty questionnaire and a student
questionnaire. The faculty questionnaire was emailed to the Director Human Resources (NUST)
for distribution to NUST English Language Faculty. One of the respondents was already at
Warwick University so the questionnaire was administered to her after an interview session.
For the interviews, three Pakistani ELT professionals with extensive experience in teaching at
university level and knowledge of curriculum design and development were contacted. Two of
the interviewees were based in Pakistan, and working at Agha Khan University and Curriculum

Wing, Ministry of Education respectively. The third interviewee was based at the University of
Warwick and was in the process of completing her PhD. Interviews with the Pakistan-based
respondents had to be conducted via email as availability for online interviews was a major
problem in view of the time difference between UK and Pakistan and the professional
commitments of the interviewees. Interview with the UK based interviewee was conducted at
CELTE, University of Warwick.

CHAPTER THREE
3.0
3.1

Literature Review
Overview

In the literature review, pioneering as well as current theories and approaches regarding
curriculum frameworks, needs assessment, course evaluation and mentoring will be reviewed to
provide a backdrop for discussion of the data section 5.0.
3.2

Curriculum framework and processes

Johnson (1989, p8) writes that:


..in programmes developed by individual teachers, materials are often fragmentary, and
poorly organised..with little guidance as to how the materials should be used, This
does not mean that the programme is incoherent as taught, though it may be, only that the
curriculum exists primarily within the minds of its creators. When staff changes occur,
the teaching materials, the only tangible evidence of that curriculum, make little sense to
the newcomers
The situation described by Johnson characterises curriculum practices at most Pakistani HE
institutions. Given that research into English language education in Pakistan has been sporadic,
standardised language programme development has yet to be implemented by bodies such as the
HEC or the Ministry of Education. Consequently, most English language programmes at tertiary
level in Pakistan continue to be organised on an adhoc basis by the individual teachers and/or the
institutions. Frequently, the teachers designing and implementing the programme also lack
specialized background needed for non teaching tasks such as course planning (Dubin &
Olshtain: 1986, p1). This means that the effectiveness of English language programmes at
Pakistani universities pivots on the calibre of the course designer and/or teacher rather than upon
national educational guidelines.
Programme development is underscored by curriculum development which occupies an
important niche in educational research and practice. A brief review of the role, function and
nature of the theoretical foundations of curriculum development frameworks will explicate the
influence of curriculum related factors on educational programmes.

10

Cornbleth (1990, p12) notes that


how we conceive of curriculum and curriculum making is important because our
conceptions and ways of reasoning about curriculum reflect and shape how we see, think
and talk about, study and act on the education made available to students
Hence, conceptions of curriculum are more than a matter of theoretical differences as each
conceptualization determines the kind of curriculum that will eventually be put into practice and
thereby makes it imperative for educational managers and practitioners to be conversant with the
theoretical foundations of any curriculum they commit to.
Thinking on curriculum processes has ranged from Tylers (in Nunan: 1988, p11) product
oriented model of systematic curriculum development which envisaged curriculum activity as
occurring in a series of discrete and sequential stages, Tabas expanded but still linear
reworking of the Tylerian engineering paradigm (Kiely and Rea Dickins:2005, p22), to
Stenhouses (in Nunan: 1988, p11) process paradigm which centres on the implemented rather
than the planned curriculum and focuses on the importance of teachers as the agents of
curricular change.
The mainstream conception of curriculum has centred on viewing curriculum as a tangible
product, usually a document or plan for instruction in a particular subject (Cornbleth: 1990, p13)
existing apart from curriculum policy making, design, and practice and from its structural and
socio cultural contexts (ibid). Over the years, such technocratic approaches to curriculum
construction have attracted criticism for fostering reliance on experts, deskilling teachers and
promoting both knowledge and social control. The approach has also been critiqued because it
perpetuates the status quo and does not view change as a catalyst for progress (ibid, p 33-34).
However, the product focused approach to curriculum design has not prevailed to the extinction
of other approaches as we shall see in the three conceptions of curriculum discussed below. Due
to the constraints of space, only three approaches which represent a distinct departure from the
product focused approach will be reviewed.
Stenhouse (1975, p4) saw curriculum as an attempt to communicate the essential principles and
features of an educational proposal in such a way that it is open to critical scrutiny and capable of
effective translation into practice and promoting the idea of teacher as researcher, contended
that curriculum development must rest on teacher development and that it should promote it
and hence the professionalism of the teacher (ibid, p24). In contrast prevalent thinking,

11

Stenhouse put forward the idea that curriculum development and pedagogic practice, rather than
being mutually exclusive processes, were closely allied and hence emphasized the centrality of
the teacher in the development and implementation of curriculum processes.
More than a decade later, Nunan (1988, p10) defined curriculum as the systematic attempt by
educationalists and teachers to specify and study planned intervention into the educational
enterprise and suggested looking at the curriculum.as an attempt to specify what should
happen in the classroom, to describe what actually does happen, and to attempt to reconcile the
differences between what should be and what actually is.(my italics). In pinpointing the need
to affect a reconciliation between the ideal and the real, Nunans views anticipated what
Cornbleth (1990, p15) highlights in her book Curriculum in Context, as a practical logic in use
rather than a reconstructed or idealized logic upon which technocratic conceptions of curriculum
development seem to pivot.
In the context of our discussion, Cornbleths (1990) views of the nature of curriculum although
largely supported by examples derived from the US context are of great relevance to the
theoretical debate surrounding curriculum approaches. Sharing her experience of following the
conventional guidelines for curriculum change, or ...RDDA (research, development,
dissemination, adoption) models (which) seemed to have precious little impact on classroom
practice (ibid:p5), Cornbleth contends that technocratic approaches do not work because they
decontextualize curriculum both conceptually and operationally (ibid: p13). For Cornbleth
(ibid, p24) a curriculum comes to lifeas it is enacted and she further asserts that if our
curriculum concern is with what students have an opportunity to learn and perhaps also how they
are enabled to learn it, then we ought to focus on classroom practice, not previously documented
intentions (my italics). She describes curriculum construction as an ongoing social activity that
is shaped by various contextual influences within and beyond the classroom and accomplished
interactively, primarily by teachers and students.
These descriptions of curriculum emphasise the role of participants and of context in curriculum
development and it is this focus which distinguishes Stenhouses, Nunans and Cornbleths
approaches from the prescriptive and product focused approach which presents curriculum
processes as divorced from social influence of both participants and context.

12

So what impact have the theoretical debates over curriculum had on the realities of curriculum
construction? While curriculum continues to be seen in terms of a syllabus, or a product, or a
process, or praxis (Smith: 1996, p2000), the differences arise from whether curriculum should
reflect the linear, product oriented and the technicist/managerial approach or the interdependent
and process oriented approach which sees any educational idea as a hypothesis testable in
practice and open to critical testing rather than passive acceptance (Stenhouse: 1975, p142)
Johnsons (1989, p18) advocacy of a coherent language curriculum (which) reconciles what is
desirable (policy) with what is acceptable and possible (pragmatics) is reflective of a pragmatic
tendency to reconcile two polarities on the curriculum continuum-namely, the specialist
approach and the learner centred approach (ibid: p13-14).
The learner centred curriculum model developed by Nunan (1988, p20) appears to combine the
advantages of both approaches by offering a synthesis of the product and the process approaches
to curriculum. While containing procedures for developing goals and objectives and for
evaluating these the Nunan model also sees the various curriculum development activities as
ongoing processes within the teaching-learning process.
More recently, Graves (2000, p7) who describes the process of teaching as an organic,
unpredictable, challenging, satisfying, and frustrating process which makes any activity
associated with teaching is in some respect a work in progress (my italics) has proposed (ibid:
p179) a framework of language course design which combines the product and process approach.
Graves talks about components such as assessing needs, determining goals and objectives,
conceptualizing content, selecting and developing materials and activities, organizing content
and activities and evaluating the learners and programme but also takes into account the fact that
components of course design are interrelated and each of the processes influences and is
influenced by the other in some way (ibid, p4). Therefore course design is seen not as a linear
activity but one very much influenced by ongoing interaction between learners, teachers, and
knowledge. It would appear that there is an inclination on the part of curriculum designers to
combine the linear and product focused and the non linear and process focused approaches in
curriculum planning.
The aim of the review of literature on curriculum development in this section has been to provide
a context for further discussion of curriculum planning as it is practised (or not) with reference to
English language programmes/courses at Pakistani HE institutions.

13

3.3

Needs assessment

It has been noted that course designers/teachers at Pakistani universities rarely conduct needs
assessment or analysis prior to establishing the parameters of the course they are designing.
Hence course designers miss out on valuable data that may help to shape a programme of greater
relevance and utility to all who have a stake in the course, i.e. learners, institution etc
Christison and Krahnke (1986, p78) remark that sound curriculum design in ESL programs for
academic preparation would be based on empirical data that reflect what is really useful to
students and not only on the intuitions and the expertise of the teaching personnel(my italics)
Richards (1990, p20) views seem to support the need for such empirical data as he describes
how ..effective language teaching programs are dependent upon systematic data gathering,
planning, and development within a context that is shaped and influenced by learner, teacher,
school, and societal factors and in doing so reinforces the case for assessing needs prior to and
throughout the course (my italics)
The imperative for detecting the needs of the participants in a language programme/course also
comes from the fact that course design, like teaching.is a grounded process. This means that
when you design a course, you design it for a specific group of people, in a specific setting, for a
specific amount of time; in short for a specific context (Graves: 2000, p15) (my italics).
3.3.1 Definitions and descriptions of needs assessment
From looking at the rationale behind the conducting of needs analysis, we can review how
selected linguists and curriculum theorists view needs analysis. In his discussion on a learner
centred curriculum, Nunan (1988, p45), defines needs analysis as a set of procedures for
specifying the parameters of a course of study which are meant to be derived through
extensive consultation with learners themselves.
Pointing out that needs analysis in learner centred systems of language learning, has come to be
considered a vital prerequisite to the specification of language learning objectives, Brindley
(1989, p63) describes needs analysis as trying to identify and take into account a multiplicity of
affective and cognitive variables which affect learning, such as learners attitudes, motivation,
awareness, personality, wants, expectations and learning styles. The extensive consultation with

14

learners (Nunan: 1988, p45) is meant to yield information on the very variables that Brindley
lists in his description of needs analysis.
Like Nunan, Richards (1990, p1-2) considers needs analysis as a mechanism for obtaining a
wider range of input into the content, design, and implementation of a language program through
involving such people as learners, teachers, administrators, and employers in the planning
process. However, Richards expands the functions of needs analysis to include the identification
of general or specific language needs that can be addressed in developing goals, objectives, and
content for a language program and the provision of data that can serve as the basis for
reviewing and evaluating and existing program.
In her book on course design, Graves (2001, p178-179) defines needs assessment as involving
the discovery of what the learners know and can do and what they need to learn or do so that the
course can bridge the gap. She adds that such assessment can include input from students as
well as from the various people connected to the course, such as teachers, funders, parents,
administration, and employers.
The emphasis in these descriptions of needs analysis is on the contextualization and
customization of a programme in view of participant needs.
3.3.2 Needs assessment methodologies
The importance of needs assessment as a curriculum process is indicated by the evolution of a
wide range of needs assessment methodologies within the field of educational research.
Referring to these, Berwick (1989, p56-58) discusses Stevicks socio topical matrix drawn to
array the kinds of people learners need to interact with against the things learners most likely
want to talk about with each of these individuals, Freires dialogue in which important themes in
the lives of prospective learners are gradually clarified through graphic and verbal exercises, as
well as target situation analysis (Chambers; Jupp and Hodlin: ibid) which focuses on the nature
and effect of target language communications in particular situations. Other inductive methods
discussed by Berwick include the Critical Incident Technique focusing on breakdowns in
communication and the Delphi study developed by the Rand Corporation which entails asking
stakeholders who never meet during the study, to rank items which constitute important or
desirable future conditions during the course of several ranking rounds. In each round the

15

individuals are informed about the degree of support each item has received and they are asked
to reconsider their previous choices in the light of an emerging consensus on particular items
3.3.3 Negative aspects of needs assessment
This review would be incomplete without reference to some of the disadvantages that theorists
and practitioners have detected in needs assessment. While acknowledging that needs assessment
can cater for different learner needs by enabling teachers to make pedagogical choices based on
what learners require from the course, Graves (2001: p180-181) sounds a note of caution when
she contends that needs analysis is not a value free process and that it is influenced by the
teachers view of what the course is about, the institutional constraints, and the students
perceptions of what is being asked of them. She adds that due to unfamiliarity with the
procedure students may also experience difficulty in articulating their purposes or needs.
Practitioners frequently cite this inarticulateness on the part of the learners as being one of the
reasons in not making wider use of learner oriented needs assessment.
However, the literature on needs assessment establishes its importance as a vital curriculum
process when it comes to implementing effective English language programmes for it provides
course designers and other participants with valuable input as to what is needed for better
learning.
3.4

Programme evaluation

It has been felt that while needs assessment is often overlooked during the designing of a course,
programme evaluation is a curriculum process that is implemented at universities in Pakistan
primarily because it offers visible (if not always accurate) measure of student satisfaction and
programme effectiveness. Usually, universities evaluate the effectiveness of their educational
programmes by administering mid term and end of course student questionnaires. The data from
these is collected and analysed to highlight areas of concern related to teacher effectiveness,
syllabi relevance and comprehensibility, and materials suitability. However, evaluation, as this
literature review will reveal entails much more than reliance on data from self report data sources
such as student questionnaires.
Before looking at evaluation further we need to be clear about the distinction between
assessment and evaluation. Although there is a tendency to equate assessment with evaluation,

16

Nunan (1992, p185) distinguishes between the two by defining assessment as processes and
procedures whereby it is determined what learners can do in the target language and evaluation
as a wider range of processes which may or may not include assessment data.
3.4.1 Definitions of evaluation
Due to the constraints of space within this dissertation, we will consider only a small range of
definitions educational researchers and practitioners have originated during the past decades.
Cronbach (in Posner & Rudnitsky: 1986, p152) identifies evaluation for programme
improvement as well as for administrative purposes. Rea Dickins & Germaine (1992: p23) cite
accountability, curriculum development and self development as some of the purposes of
programme evaluation. For Patton (1996, p142), evaluation also serves the purposes of
empowering participants and stimulating critical reflection on the path to more enlightened
practice.
Brown (1989, p223) as well as Kiely & Rea Dickins (2005, p5) offer a fairly representative
explication of what evaluation signifies and entails within the field of educational research and
practice.
Brown (ibid, p223) defines evaluation as the systematic collection and analysis of all relevant
information necessary to promote the improvement of a curriculum, and assess its effectiveness
and efficiency, as well as participants attitudes within the context of the particular institutions
involved. He also sees it as the drawing together of many sources of information. with the
goal of forming all of this into a cogent and useful picture of how well the language learning
needs of the students are being met (ibid, p241).
Focusing on the multiplicity of meanings associated with the term Evaluation, Kiely and Rea
Dickins (2005, p5) observe that:
Evaluation has many meanings in language programs. It is part of the novice teachers
checklist to guide the development of initial lesson plans and teaching practice, a process
of determining learning achievements or student satisfaction, and a dimension of the
analysis of data in a formal evaluation or research study. It refers to judgements about
students by teachers and by external assessors; the performance of teachers by their
students, program managers and institutions; and programs, departments and institutions
by internal assessors, external monitors and inspectors. Evaluation is about the
relationships between different program components, the procedures and epistemologies
developed by the people involved in programs, and the processes and outcomes which are
used to show the value of a program-accountability- and enhance this value-development.

17

It appears that far from being a uni-dimensional phenomenon, evaluation can be used for making
many types of decisions and serving multiple purposes. The importance of evaluation lies in that
it can break the cycle of old influences and initiate new ones (Rea Dickins and Germaine:
1992, p20) and hence in the words of Weir and Roberts (1994, p218) serve as an essential
element in both language curriculum planning and development, and in personal staff
development-(italics in original)
It is therefore a cause for some concern to find that Hargreaves (1989, p35) contention that
evaluationis typically the least well articulated and supported limb of a projects anatomy is
true of most ELT programmes in Pakistani universities. Generally most Pakistani HE institutions
evaluate courses by administering two questionnaires. Yet as instruments these questionnaires
can be inadequate because not all learners are able to articulate exactly how the course is out of
sync with their needs and requirements, and if they are unable to do this then the course cannot
be modified to address their difficulties. Additionally such evaluations tend to focus on
accountability and curriculum improvement to the exclusion of empowerment of participants and
development of critical reflection on practice.
Commenting on the central role evaluation has in curriculum development, Brown (1989, p241)
remarks thatevaluation should be the part of a curriculum that includes, connects and gives
meaning to all of the other elements in a program (my italics). In view of its importance, a
review of when and how evaluation should be conducted can better our understanding of how
evaluation may be designed to lead development and be integrated with it (Stenhouse :1975,
p122) (my italics)
3.4.2 Issues in evaluation
Kiely & Rea Dickins (2005, p10) note that evaluationsare located at the intersection of
professional practice, policy and management, and research into learning and instructional
processes. As such there are innumerable issues and factors to be dealt with when designing and
implementing effective evaluations a number of which will be discussed in this section.

18

3.4.3 Formative, summative & developmental evaluation


Evaluation can be either formative or summative or both at times. It is formative when it takes
place, periodically or recurrently, during the course of programme delivery and summative when
it is carried out to provide information for modification of succeeding programmes (if any are
planned for the future) or when a particular stage has been reached prior to further investment of
resources (Hargreaves 1989, p37 :Rea Dickins & Germaine 1992, p24 & 26: Nunan: 1992, p190
& 192). The distinction between formative and summative was originated by Scriven (in Brown:
1989, p226) but it came to be challenged by a later curriculum theorist Patton who believed that
formative and summative evaluations were circumscribed by the having to cater for external
accountability. To make evaluations more useful, Patton (1994, p 313 & p318) suggested the use
of developmental evaluation which called for continuous progress, ongoing adaptation and rapid
responsiveness to changes in participants, contexts, learnings and conditions and which was
seen as
being useful in innovative settings where goals are emergent and changing rather than
predetermined and fixed, time periods are fluid and forward-looking rather than
artificially imposed by external deadlines, and purpose is learning, innovation, and
change rather than external accountability ..(Patton:1994, p 313 & p318)
It is important to note that formative and summative evaluations are not necessarily discrete.
Summative evaluation can take place at the end of any particular stage within a programme or
course and hence can be used to develop the next stage. Even when it is conducted at the end of a
programme, succeeding courses (if any are run) are shaped by the findings of the summative
evaluation of the previous course hence the function of the previous summative evaluation
becomes formative in the next course.
3.4.4 Paradigms of evaluation
In surveying what he calls legitimate evaluation paradigms, Stufflebeam (2001, p7) discusses
twenty approaches which he categorizes in terms of questions/methods oriented approaches,
improvement/accountability approaches, and social agenda/advocacy approaches. He (ibid, p12)
points out that each approach has been surveyed discretely although in reality evaluators may
mix and match approaches in carrying out evaluations. Trochims (2005) discussion of four
groups of evaluation perspectives facilitates the visualization of the evaluation paradigms.
Historically dominant, scientific-experimental models which take their values and methods from
19

the sciences prioritize on the need for impartiality, accuracy, objectivity and the valid
information. Included in this model are: the tradition of experimental and quasi-experimental
designs; objectives-based research that comes from education; econometrically-oriented
perspectives including cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis; and the recent articulation of
theory-driven evaluation. Trochim (ibid) also speaks of management-oriented systems paradigms
such as the Context, Input, Process and Product (CIPP) model which emphasizes the locating of
evaluation within a larger framework of organizational activities.
The third class of perspectives are the qualitative/anthropological models which emphasize the
importance of observation, the need to retain the phenomenological quality of the evaluation
context, and the value of subjective human interpretation in the evaluation process Included in
this category are the approaches known as naturalistic or 'Fourth Generation' evaluation. Finally,
Trochim (ibid) discusses participant-oriented models which emphasize the central importance of
the evaluation participants, especially clients and users of the program or technology. Clientcentered and stakeholder approaches are some of the typical participant-oriented models.
3.4.5 Approaches to programme evaluation
According to Brown (1989, p224-227), programme evaluation can be accomplished in a number
of ways:

Goal attainment approaches: Product oriented approaches focus on the goals and
instructional objectives of a program with the purpose of determining whether these have
been achieved.

Static characteristic approaches: Within the static characteristic approach, evaluation is


conducted by outside experts in order to determine the effectiveness of a particular
programme.

Process oriented approaches: The realization that evaluation procedures could also be
utilized to facilitate curriculum change and improvement has led to the evolution of
process oriented approaches

Decision facilitation approaches: Decision facilitation approach to program evaluation


deals with serving the purposes of decision makers and administrators

20

Other theorists such as Weir and Roberts (1994, p5) categorize evaluations according to whether
they are accountability-oriented or development-oriented. The former is intended to assess
the degree to which staff have met contractual or professional accountability and the latter is
intended to bring about programme.improvement (ibid).
3.4.6 Methods of evaluation
Hargreaves (1989: p 40-41) notes that programme evaluations may employ either the a priori
method or the empirical method (italics in original). The a priori method involves the
assessment of an aspect or product of a project by experts in terms of previously agreed upon
global/relative criteria through (means) analysis of project documentation, proposals, reports etc
and comparison with established opinion of what a similar project should be. The empirical
method involves the comparison of a situation before and after in order to gauge the changes
brought about by a project through (means) collection of initial or base line data against which a
subsequent comparison can be made.
3.4.7 The foci of evaluation
Evaluation can focus on objectives, student language achievement, materials, teaching and
participant satisfaction (Weir and Roberts: 1994, p85). What is evaluated depends on who asks
for the evaluation and what is to be done with the evaluation findings. For example, an
evaluation can be conducted for accountability purposes. In this case it is likely that the
evaluation will be initiated by the funding agency/sponsor and that outside evaluators will be
brought in to ensure objectivity of the findings. The funding agency would want the evaluator to
discover whether its investments have paid off in terms of student attainment and programme
success. The findings may be used to change the programme or even to replace it if the evaluator
finds that the programme is not achieving the desired outcomes.
Thus, evaluation has the function of looking at everything in a programme and drawing
justifiable conclusions about the worth, merit, potential, success or not of any aspect of product
of a programme.
As commonly used evaluative instruments, questionnaires can be inadequate because not all
learners are able to articulate exactly how the course does not match their needs. Further, the
questionnaire needs to be worded with great accuracy to elicit valid information or data. A range

21

of other instruments for obtaining evaluative data such as systematic observation, learner diaries,
interviews (Nunan: 1992, p189) have been suggested for use in conjunction with questionnaires
to generate a clearer evaluation of course effectiveness or inadequacies.
Current evaluation practices are restricted not only in terms of the instrument but also in terms of
what is evaluated and the extent to which it is evaluated. What must be kept in view is that
evaluation is an intrinsic part of teaching and learning and that it is important for the teacher
because it can provide a wealth of information to use..for the planning of courses, and for the
management of learning tasks and students (Rea Dickins & Germaine: 1992, p3).
3.5

Faculty support structures

Hativa, Barak & Simhi (2001, p699) discuss Ovando as commenting that excellence in college
and university teaching is now sought by educational institutions across the world and that
increasingly, universities focus on the quality of pedagogy practised in their classrooms and the
teaching effectiveness of faculty members. Inversely, tertiary level teachers spend many years in
formal education learning the subject matter of their chosen academic area but receive negligible
formal training in the skills they need for attaining success in the teaching profession. Training
and nurturing of faculty in other significant skills areas, such as publishing, designing
examinations, assessing students, participating in faculty governance, or establishing a research
agenda receives even less attention (Luna & Cullen: 1995, p10)
Tertiary level teachers of English are further disadvantaged because English Language Teaching
(ELT) does not fit easily within the confines of academic departments and institutions, and is
therefore frequently marginalized within academic practice and scholarship (Pennington: 1992,
p12). In the case of tertiary institutions in Pakistan, ELT units/departments are called upon to
teach English to a vast number of students but marginalized when it comes to the allocation of
resources or the development of their faculty.
As Pennington (1989, p11) points out the heart of every educational enterprise, the force driving
the whole enterprise towards its educational aims, is the teaching faculty and it is this faculty
that to a large extent determines the unique character of any language program (my italics).
Since tertiary ELT professionals, for the most part, work at the institutional periphery, post
induction faculty development cannot succeed unless it incorporates an ongoing process of

22

evolution of the faculty as a functional unit within the larger organization of the program as well
as the realization of potentialities and goals of individual faculty members.(ibid)
Thus, parallel to the need for strengthening needs assessment and programme evaluation
practices is the requirement for strong faculty support structures that are built into the curriculum
framework. Graves (2000: p5) contends
that teachers are the best people to design the courses they teach (but) this doesnt
preclude collaborating as much as is feasible and desirable with students, other teachers,
and administrators. In fact such collaboration is important, because a course is usually
part of the larger system of a curriculum and an institution. Teachers who teach within
explicit curriculum guidelines can be active agents in the courses they teach if they are
clear about what the processes are and how they can take responsibility for them. (my
italics)
Teachers are central to the successful implementation of a programme yet it has been suggested
that in Pakistan there is a lack of

faculty support structures to accustom new entrants to the culture of the institution

support for new as well as seasoned faculty members in carrying out the curriculum
processes

supportive relationships/networks to facilitate institutional or collegial collaboration.

Growth in teaching is a process that occurs over a considerable period of time and which needs
to be fostered and nurtured. Unless such fostering is provided there is a chance that teachers will
acquire survival skills rather than attain true professional development. (Elliot & Calderhead:
1993, p 41).
3.5.1 The induction process
According to Mager (1992, p20)
induction is an effort to assist new teachers in performing..toward the end of being
effective. Through induction, new teachers continue to form and refine their images of
themselves as teachers in terms of their competence, performance, and effectiveness
Mager also emphasizes the need for induction to be considered other than an attempt at
remedying the deficits of preparation programmes, means of teaching the entrant everything in
one go, the instrument for socializing new teachers to the institutional culture or a way of
screening the entrant. Induction theory also allows for the interpretation of the experiences of

23

veteran teachers who experience difficulty in making transitions from one teaching assignment
to another(ibid: p27).
Induction is understood to be a process of synthesis and adaptation for both individuals and
institutions (Schempp, Sparkes & Templin :1993, p448): Fabian and Simpson (2002) contend
that it is too important to be left to chance. Yet in most cases teacher induction is flawed
because the means for acclimatization to the complexities of teaching (Hatwood Futrell: 2001)
are missing. Cuddaph (2002, p3) highlights another aspect of this problem in pointing out that
unlike other professions, which scaffold entry and transitional processes, teaching is an
unstaged career in that novice and veteran teachers essentially have the same work
responsibilities (my italics). This discrepancy between work assignment and existing experience
is compounded by the fact that the complex and changing nature of teaching renders ineffective
technicist or formulaic solutions. Literature on teacher development and induction indicates that
practitioner reflectivity is one way of gaining a better understanding and handling of practice.
Reflectivity in practice has been influenced by the work of Donald Schon (1983, p68-69) who
notes that
when someone reflects-in-action, he becomes a researcher in the practice context. He is
not dependent on the categories of established theory and technique, but constructs a new
theory of the unique case thereby allowing reflection in action to proceed, even in
situations of uncertainty or uniqueness, because it is not bound by the dichotomies of
Technical Rationality
Thus learning from reflecting on ones own teaching, from researching ones own practice , from
creating teaching portfolios, from interacting with colleagues for critical peer feedback,
mentoring and participating in teacher networks, are all regarded as ways in which teachers build
up skills and acquire knowledge. This perspective also reflects the prevailing educational
philosophy of constructivism which holds that knowledge is actively constructed through social
interaction (Goker: 2006, p40) and that learning can be facilitated by experts

modeling

problem-solving strategies, guiding learners in approximating the strategies while learners


articulate their thought processes (Kerka:1998).

24

3.5.2 Teacher development


In addition to mentoring, Neal (1992, p46) identifies four other common forms of teacher
development activities that exist in most educational settings: peer relationships among teachers,
staff development programmes, instructional supervision and traditional evaluation. While the
unified aim of these activities is the professional development of teachers, it is peer relationships
such as peer coaching which appear to parallel mentoring in most respects. Goker: (2006, p240)
describes peer coaching.as the process of two teachers working together in and out of the
classroom to plan instruction, develop support materials, and watch one another work with
students.as one such strategy for teacher development (ibid).
However, it is not within the scope of this discussion to carry out a detailed review of different
strategies of faculty development. Instead the focus will be on one particular strategy or processmentoring. The reason for this is that whatever support there is for faculty members at Pakistani
HE institutions often takes the shape of an experienced senior colleague guiding the new entrant
for a few weeks or so. Therefore, mentoring, which Alleman et al (1984, p329) describe as a
relationship in which a person of greater rank or expertise teaches, guides, and develops a novice
in an organization or profession, seems an appropriate faculty support structure to explore in
this context conforming as it does to existing practice and thereby containing the potential for
successful adaptation.
3.5.3 Mentoring
Although much has been written on the subject, the mentoring literature is distinguished by a
lack of a comprehensive definition for the mentoring process (Bogat & Redner: 1985, p851).
Mertz (2004, p543) views the absence of a shared, stipulative definition of mentoring and of
boundaries for distinguishing mentoring from other types of supportive relationships as a major
barrier to achieving a shared understanding on the mentoring phenomenon and to maximizing
the benefits of mentoring relationships. The concept of mentoring has been appropriated for
implementation within a wide swath of settings (academic, corporate, medical and so on) but the
appropriation has not always entailed a consistent conceptualization of the phenomenon.
Leaving aside the contentious issue of a shared (ibid) definition of mentoring, most mentoring
literature makes reference to mentoring as being rooted in Homers Odyssey in which Odysseus
entrusted the education of his son, Telemachus, to his friend and counsellor, Mentor thus

25

securing the assistance of an older and wiser person for his inexperienced son (Sands, Duane &
Parsons, 1991, p175: Little,1990, p298:Healy& Welchert,1990, p17: Tolentino, 1999, p2: Luna
& Cullen,

p14: Hadden: 1997, p17: Aldred & Garvey, 2000, p269:Siskin & Davis, 2000, p1)

The concept of mentoring is also said to have been impacted by the ideas of Levinson (in Kartje,
1996, p116) who examined the mentor-protg relationship in terms of the adult development
theory and described the mentor as playing a key role in helping the protg articulate and realize
the vision or dream he held for his life.
At a less abstract level, Head, Reiman & Thies-Sprinthall (1992, p14) describe mentoring in the
following way:
the heart and soul of mentoring is an outgrowth of belief in the value and worth of
people and an attitude toward education that focuses upon passing the torch to the next
generation of teachers
Within this description can be discerned a number of elements that would seem to constitute the
mentoring process as it is widely understood. The empowerment of new teaching professionals is
attempted by experienced colleagues who undertake to provide a supportive and developmental
environment for the new generation of teachers. Within this scenario we can also detect the
working of Eriksons (in Mertz: 2004, p544-545) concept of generativity which helps the
mentor to realize the developmental milestone of transcending the self in serving others and the
future through the protg.
Kelly, Beck & AP Thomas (1995, p253) argue that self development is rarely successful without
the support of other people. A system of mentoring offers that support by providing individuals
with someone who can give feedback, question, share, discuss, challenges, confront and guide
one through the learning cycle. (my italics)
The keywords here are a system of mentoring. The strengthening of needs assessment and
course evaluation procedures and provision of systematised faculty support can not only enhance
the effectiveness of language courses but also ensure the maintenance of quality of the teaching
and learning environment.
Mentoring can be rationalised in terms of the fact that new teachers require support as well as
ongoing staff development to succeed in the teaching profession. Mentoring serves as an
effective induction strategy benefiting the mentors, protgs and institutions alike in the process
itself (Newcombe: 1988, p5).

26

3.5.4 Definitions of mentoring


Alleman et al (1984, p329) describe mentoring as a relationship in which a person of greater
rank or expertise teaches, guides, and develops a novice in an organization or profession. The
experience has an unusually beneficial effect on the protgs personal and professional
development. Anderson & Shannon (1987, p29) define mentoring as a nurturing process in
which a more skilled or more experienced person , serving as a role model, teaches, sponsors,
encourages, counsels, and befriends a less skilled or less experienced person for the purpose of
promoting the latters professional and/or personal development. Mentoring functions are carried
out with the context of an ongoing, caring relationship between the mentor and protg.
Healy and Welchert (1990, p17) consider:
mentoring to be a dynamic, reciprocal relationship in a work environment between an
advanced career incumbent (mentor) and a beginner (protg) aimed at promoting the
career development of both. For the protg, the object of mentoring is the achievement
of an identity transformation, a movement from the status of understudy to that of selfdirecting colleague. For the mentor, the relationship is a vehicle for achieving midlife
generativity....
Roberts (2000, p162) views mentoring as a formalised process whereby a more knowledgeable
and experienced person actuates a supportive role of overseeing and encouraging reflection and
learning within a less experienced and knowledgeable person, so as to facilitate that persons
career and personal development
Brysons (2001, p xi) description of mentoring parallels that of Anderson & Shannon although
he chooses to describe it as a framework of affirmative encouragement by practised and capable
staff to colleagues new to teaching or new to an institution. Mentoring allows abilities,
knowledge, skills and understanding to be transferred to less self-assured colleagues. This
difference in perception may be due in part to the fact that Mentoring has evolved as a field and
todays mentors are not only experienced practitioners but also receive substantial training to
nurture, train or guide their protgs. Garvey (2004, p161) describes mentoring as a relationship
between two people, with learning and development as its core purpose which involves certain
human qualities and attributes such as trust, commitment and emotional engagement and
includes the use of certain skills such as listening, questioning, challenging and supporting.

27

Although limited in number, these definitions provide some sense of the complexity of the
mentoring process and participant roles. Mentoring participants include the mentor and the
protg. The role of the more experienced colleague/mentor is viewed as that of supporting and
nurturing less experienced colleagues so as to assist their induction into the work environment.
Healy & Welcherts (ibid) definition is indicative of the views of theorists who see the mentoring
relationship as a more equal one in that it allows for the development of both the mentor and the
mentee rather than just the protg as in earlier and more traditional conceptualizations of
mentoring.
3.5.5 Models of mentoring
Bryson (2001: p28-32) speaks of three prevalent models found in the literature on mentoring:

The apprenticeship model which consists of working alongside an experienced


practitioner who also serves as a model for the trainee

The competency model which consists of the mentor acting as a systematic


trainer providing training according to a list of pre defined competencies

The reflective practitioner model in which the mentor takes on the role of co
enquirer with the trainee

The models enable the visualization of what kind of mentoring teachers may need at a particular
stage in their careers. As always the cultural fit of an idea accounts for its success or failure
within the implementation stage. For socio cultural reasons, Pakistans HE context is
characterised by high power distance as well as a top down style of management which make
Brysons apprenticeship and competency models of mentoring more appropriate than that of the
third model which presupposes a less directive relationship between the mentor and protg. It is
considered suitable for protgs to model their professional conduct (encompassing work
responsibilities as well as behaviour) on that of an experienced and seasoned practitioner. In
most cases, institutions also prefer inductees to develop predefined competencies with the help of
a trainer as these competencies are more quantifiable and therefore easier to assess.
Brysons (ibid: p16) list of the six common types of mentors is also a helpful aid in identifying
the kind of mentoring relationship that may exist within a particular context and that has the
potential to take root in a particular institution:

28

1.

Traditional mentors

2.

Supportive bosses

3.

Organizational sponsors

4.

Professional mentors

5.

Patrons

6.

Invisible godparents

Discussion in the data analysis section 5.1 will reveal which type (s) of mentors may function
more effectively in the Pakistani context.
The models of mentoring have been viewed from another perspective by Clutterbuck (2004, p43)
who differentiates between the sponsorship focused model which is predominant in literature
emerging from North America and which functions on the premise that it is the mentors ability
to do things on behalf of someone more junior that drives the relationship and the development
focused model which sees the mentee as the main driver of the process. The developmental
model encourages the mentee to maximize the benefits of the mentoring relationship by being
proactive in his or her own development.
3.5.6 Phases of mentoring
Researchers have noted a progression of four to six phases through which mentoring
relationships develop. Phillips (in Head, Reiman & Thies- Sprinthall:1995 ,p21) has identified
these as invitation, sparkle, development, disillusionment, parting and transformation. Hunt &
Michael (ibid) have categorized these as initiation, protg, break up and lasting friendship and
Kram (1983, p614) has described the phases in terms of initiation, cultivation, separation and
redefinition. The phases described by most theorists follow a similar pattern. Once initiated the
mentoring relationship matures into a deeper and reciprocally meaningful interaction which
lessens in intensity as the mentee becomes more empowered and independent. Once the protg
has become independent of the mentor the final stage becomes that of redefining the role so that
mentors and protgs can set for themselves the parameters of future interaction on a basis of
collegial parity.

29

3.5.7 Benefits of mentoring


by not mentoring, we are wasting talent. We educate and train, but dont nurture.
(Wright & Wright: 1987, p207)
Faculty mentoring helps to create new incentives and career opportunities and eases the
transition of new faculty into the professoriate to a great extent (Kanuka: 2005, p3).It also serves
as a strategy to personalize individual faculty development and to empower entrants as well as
veterans within the teaching profession through strong supportive relationships. Its benefits have
been well documented and include the advancement of organizational culture, provision of
access to informal and formal networks of communication and provision of professional
stimulation to all faculty members (Luna & Cullen: 1995, p 5). Mentoring is also supportive of
professional growth and renewal (ibid, p6) and promotes faculty productivity, advocates
collegiality, and encourages a broader goal of attracting, retaining, and advancing faculty
members (p14, ibid). The benefits of mentoring are not restricted to the protgs only. Kanuka
(2005, p3) discusses Reich as commenting that mentors are in a position to gain satisfaction
from assisting new colleagues, improving their own managerial skills, and increasing stimulation
from bright and creative new faculty members. Mentoring would thus appear to be a meaningful
and advantageous induction/support mechanism for faculty induction, development and
retention.
3.5.8 Disadvantages of mentoring
While mentoring has great utility it must not be considered a panacea for all problems in a
department, college, or institution (Luna & Cullen: 1995, p68). Mentoring is as susceptible to
dysfunction as other supportive relationships and Wright & Wright (1987, p207) enumerate
some of the characteristics of counter productive mentoring interactions which can include
exploitive relationships, stagnation, and conflicting personalities or value structures. Mentoring
can only thrive if both mentor and protg are willing participants, if the interaction is based on
mutually desired outcomes, and if the requisite institutional support is available.
The dangers of fostering counter productive mentoring partnerships can be preempted by first of
all viewing it as an ever evolving phenomenon, rather than a static one, because it pivots on
human interaction and human relationships (which are very susceptible to change) taking place
within a profession that continues to develop at a frenetic pace. In an article marking the new
millennium, Hargreaves and Fullan (2000, p52-55) commented that the growing complexity of

30

the teaching profession meant that teachers had to deal with a diverse clientele, face increasing
moral uncertainty and contend with the vested interests of diverse groups. They concluded that
mentoring, as an induction and support mechanism, had to be seen as central rather than adjunct
to the task of transforming the teaching profession itself. (my italics). Mentoring had to change
from being the source of hierarchical dispensation of wisdom to being the catalyst for shared
inquiries of wisdom and had to become instrumental in creating strong professional cultures
involving all teaching professionals and not just the new teachers.
It may be noted here that while Hargreaves & Fullans view that mentoring should lead to
shared inquiries of wisdom has immense potential, the fact that the Pakistani HE context is more
conservative than most may make the development of a nurturing or training relationship into
one of shared inquiry somewhat difficult to conceptualise and bring about. Indeed, while faculty
mentoring is a powerful induction and development strategy, Luna & Cullen (1995, p6) point out
that it must fit the culture and environment of the educational institution, and faculty must be
involved in the design and implementation of strategies and plans for mentoring if it is to serve
the purpose of faculty development.
This point has great bearing on the use of mentoring as an induction tool within the Pakistani HE
context and further discussion will take note of the need for cultural fit of mentoring within the
context under discussion.

31

CHAPTER FOUR
4.0

Research Findings

4.1

Results of the questionnaires

The responses the questions in both qustionnaires have been collated in textual or graphical form and
presented in Appendix IV for ease of reference.

32

CHAPTER FIVE

5.0

Discussion

5.1

Faculty questionnaire

This chapter will discuss relevant issues raised by the research findings in relation to the main
headings under which the questionnaire was structured

Background information

Needs assessment

Mentoring

Programme development

All three areas addressed by the questionnaire provide interesting information on the research
focus of this dissertation. While graphical representation of questionnaire results in Appendix IV
may enable the reader to understand what the data superficially signifies, there is still more to be
gained from interpreting the responses to each question.
Because women faculty tend to show different trajectories than do men (Bronstein &
Farnsworth: 1998, p558) the fact that the survey was answered by almost an equal number of
female faculty as male faculty was helpful in generating data that stemmed from different
perspectives and experiences. Also, the respondents were fairly representative of age and career
level. 42% of the respondents held an MA qualification whereas 2 of the respondents had
additional qualifications in the form of MA TEFL and MBA. Another 2 were in the process of
completing research degrees.
The minimum teaching experience at HE level was 3 years and the maximum 33 years. Again
the variation in the length of time spent teaching at tertiary level was helpful as it provided the
insights of faculty members who were fairly new to the profession as well as mature
professionals well used to teaching at universities.
In question 6, the respondents described their preservice/inservice teacher training and only one
respondent indicated that he/she had not received such training at all. Two of the respondents had
completed training imparted by the Educational Branches of Pakistans military services as these
respondents had at one point served in the Air Force and Navy respectively. NUST and the
Pakistani military services jointly run several of the Armed Forces institutions hence serving
officers with the requisite subject expertise are at times seconded to NUST colleges. It was also

revealed that inservice/preservice training usually consisted of workshops, certificate and


diploma courses and that the training for each respondent depended on individual circumstances
and institutional imperatives.
For question 7, three of the respondents wrote that their training or experience in curriculum
development consisted of working out objectives, course plans and syllabi during the course of
their work. This is indicative of the situation highlighted in section 1.1 in which it was pointed
out that teachers in Pakistan lack specialized training in curriculum development. Most teachers
learn on the job and hence the quality of what they learn cannot be certified. Question 8 revealed
that the respondents were well experienced in teaching English.
In question 9, respondents were asked which aspect (s) of organizing a course they had ever been
responsible for. The lowest percentages-57% and 71%-were recorded for needs assessment and
course evaluation respectively thereby corroborating the general view that needs assessment and
course/programme evaluation do not feature prominently in the Pakistani teachers repertoire of
responsibilities. The responses to question 10 also highlighted an interesting fact that only in
42% of the cases were the English programmes run by the Department of English; in the case of
an overwhelming 71%, the Humanities and Science Division had a greater role in the running of
these programmes. Since the Humanities and Science Division cannot aspire to the kind of
subject focus the Department of English may have, this fact alone has great bearing on how
English programmes and faculty may be short changed in terms of expertise, resources and
faculty development.
In question 11, it was indicated that English was both a core and support subject by 57% of the
respondents respectively. Here it must be understood that by core the respondents do not mean
that English is taught as a main subject such as for e.g. object oriented programming for the BIT
students in NUSTs Information Technology Institute but that it is taught as a subject which must
be passed in order to progress to the next semester. None of the respondents polled worked at
institutions offering English as a degree subject. The substantial percentages affirm the
importance of English as a subject, whether support or core, in Pakistans HE sector. Responses
to questions 12 to 14 indicated that all the respondents taught undergraduate students whereas
42% also taught at the postgraduate level and that the courses they taught were all graded using
the same pattern as the other subjects in the university.

34

Question 15 yielded the data that decision making as to syllabus, books and materials was
overwhelmingly (85%) in the hands of the teachers with the university the closest second at 42%.
This is not so much reflective of teachers independence as reflective of the lack of standardised
curriculum development and implementation as already discussed in Section 1.1. Interestingly,
while in question 9, 57% of the teachers indicated that they did not conduct needs assessment, in
question 16, 71% respondents indicated that learner needs were assessed during the course of
their teaching. The apparent contradiction may be tied in with the response to question 17 which
shows that in 71% of the cases the needs assessment took the form of discussion with students in
initial sessions. It is possible that faculty members do not easily equate formal needs assessment
with discussions with students and believe that needs assessment must take a more visible form
such as questionnaires in order to be recognized as such. In question 18, only one respondent
indicated that he/she was aware of a formal mentoring programme in a Pakistani university
whereas the remaining six answered not sure or no to this question. In question 19, only 42%
pointed out that their institutions had some kind of faculty induction policy. In question 20, a
similar percentage of respondents explained teacher support structures as taking the form of
understudying a senior colleague, guidance from a senior colleague or peer development
strategies. The variation in the forms of teacher support structures cited confirms the supposition
that faculty induction is a less than organised or standardised activity in most universities in
Pakistan. In question 21, when asked to describe mentoring support the respondents may have
received, 57% cited guidance by senior colleague and weekly departmental seminars, post
induction collegial support, one to one counselling relationship with HoD and unstructured
modelling of ones teaching behaviour on the way senior colleagues teach as the kind of support
they received once inducted into the universities. Again what is striking is the variation in the
form of support experienced and the absence of an established and systematized induction
programme for faculty members. In question 22, 57% respondents strongly agreed and 42%
agreed that course effectiveness can be increased if faculty is supported through support
structures such as a mentoring programme (faculty questionnaire). The respondents
overwhelmingly favoured mentoring programmes because faculty induction in Pakistan depends
chiefly on collegial initiative rather than uniform induction policies and programmes across the
universities. In question 23, all the respondents indicated that faculty support structures would
enable inductees to benefit from the experience of more experienced teachers and a lower

35

percentage of respondents (71%) believed that it would also help in adjusting to institutional
culture and the sharing of knowledge. In part B of question 23, the respondents stated that
experienced teachers could guide and coach new teachers and share their knowledge and
experience with them and also facilitate their adjustment in the new environment. Other
respondents wrote that such structures would help in making the whole environment more
congenial and in understanding the needs of the students at different levels. Another
respondent wrote that these could serve as starting points for teachers and help them to fill
gaps in own skills and knowledge. Key words in these responses were guide, coach and
help in adjustment to the new environment. It was also notable that respondents tended to view
support structures as relationship based which is the underlying rationale for mentoring
programmes. These views confirmed the need for a well planned induction programme. In
question 24, 71% of the respondents chose traditional mentors and supportive bosses as the
ideal mentoring combination. The choice was not surprising as culturally Pakistan is a country
with high power distance and top down decision making and administrative setup. The
respondents views affirmed the need to have a culturally appropriate mentoring combination for
successful programme implementation. As one respondent put it, the matrix of existing social
relationships between inductees and senior colleagues makes a mentoring model combining
supportive boss and traditional mentor appropriate for faculty members in Pakistani universities
In question 25, an audit of mentoring functions by the respondents revealed that 85% of those
surveyed viewed the Director and Dean as being responsible for assessing. The assessment role
for the HoD was recorded at a lower percentage (57%) but interestingly the management role
was recorded at the same percentage (71%) for Director, Dean and HoD. The HoDs role was
considered the most supportive (71%) followed by that of the Dean and then the Director. This
reveals that mentoring functions are performed but not at the same level by the same individual
again reflecting the top down style of management in Pakistan.
Responses to questions 26 and 27 confirmed the suppositions that learners were the primary
evaluators of the course and that the quality of teaching was the primary focus of a programme
evaluation. Programme evaluation/course effectiveness recorded the lowest percentage at 71%
compared to 100% for the quality of teaching. Evaluation was thus seen as the evaluation of
teacher effectiveness rather than holistic programme evaluation. Answers to questions 28 and 29
confirmed that in most cases evaluation occurred both during and at the end of the course and

36

that questionnaires were the chief mode of such evaluation. Question 30 showed that in 85 % of
the cases evaluation resulted in changes to the course but the results very rarely led to research
of any kind (14%). Question 31 showed that respondents while acknowledging that current
evaluation practices were focused on teacher effectiveness (85%) unanimously understood it to
evaluation of all the aspects of the programme and not just the teacher.
In question 32, the most number of respondents cited the following as impacting programme
effectiveness:
1. Unclear goals and objectives
2. Lack of appropriate administrative arrangements
3. Problems caused by students
4. Lack of information for learners about the course
5. Lack of skills/experience on the part of teachers
6. Heterogeneous groups and diverse learner types or needs
7. Lack of support resources (self access etc)
8. Lack of curriculum guidelines models
9. High teacher turnover
1,5 and 8 are related directly to curriculum development and implementation whereas 3 and 6
pertain indirectly and directly to the need for needs assessment. 5 and 9 can be linked to post
induction faculty development.
Question 33 asked respondents to rate who performed curriculum tasks in their present setup.
With reference to University Headquarters (UHQ), 42 % respondents rated initial needs analysis
(NA) as an extremely important task for the UHQ. Also 57% of the respondents indicated that
UHQ played an extremely important role in setting the goals and. The role of UHQ in carrying
out ongoing NA was given rated quite low indicating that the UHQ did not exhibit much
responsibility for this particular curriculum task. Devising learning activities, instructing learners
and monitoring and assessing progress were again at the lower end of the rating scale for the
UHQ. 28 % of the respondents did deem the UHQs role in course evaluation as somewhat
important but this was neutralised by an equal percentage giving it lower ratings. The
respondents ratings confirmed the general tendency of Pakistani universities to assume the most

37

responsibility for the tasks of initial needs analysis, goal and objectives setting and selecting and
grading content and to be comparatively less involved in other curriculum tasks.
Most significantly, the Director appeared to be perceived as responsible for the curriculum tasks
of monitoring and assessing and course evaluation with 71.4 % of the respondents rating
monitoring and assessing as important areas of concern for the Director.
Although the number of respondents giving the rating varied, the Deans responsibility for all the
curriculum tasks seemed to be rated at the relatively higher rating of 3. The Deans role in
monitoring and assessing progress and course evaluation was also rated on the higher. These
perceptions of the Deans role were in keeping with common practice at most universities in
Pakistan where the Dean has more direct involvement in a wider range of curriculum tasks.
The Head of Department was viewed as being responsible to a varying extent for all the
curriculum tasks. 71.4 % of the respondents believed that the HoDs involvement in course
evaluation ranged from very important to extremely important.
Not surprisingly, the role of the teacher in charge of the course was deemed as extremely
important for almost all the curriculum tasks by a significant number of respondents. Only one
respondent rated the teachers role in course evaluation as extremely important revealing that in
practice course evaluation was usually not in the teachers hands and hence not thought of as
being something the teacher must be especially involved in or needs to be trained for.
The outside curriculum specialists role in performing the listed curriculum tasks seemed to be at
best nominal and at the most extreme non existent with only a very low percentage of
respondents (14%) identifying initial needs analysis, goal and objective setting and selecting and
grading content to be the areas within which the outside curriculum specialist worked.
Question 34 was patterned on 33 but the respondents had to indicate who they thought should be
responsible for the curriculum tasks.
Whereas in question 33, 57 % of the respondents said that the UHQ role in goal and objective
setting was extremely important, in question 34, only 28% of the respondents rated the role of
UHQ for this particular task as extremely important. This may represent the practitioners
misgivings about the UHQ setting goals and objectives lacking potential for local adjustment.
The number of respondents who rated initial needs analysis to be an extremely important task for
the UHQ remained constant thereby indicating the respondents satisfaction with the status quo.

38

The number of respondents who indicated that the Director played a somewhat important to
extremely important role in goal and objective setting, ongoing needs analysis,
monitoring/assessing progress and course evaluation decreased quite visibly when it came to the
respondents views of how things should be. Goal and objective setting failed to poll a positive
rating and in fact showed an increase on the not important side of the scale. Only one
respondent thought that the Directors role in ongoing needs analysis should be rated as 1.
Monitoring/assessing too was given the rating of 3 by one respondent and for course evaluation
the number of respondents giving the rating of 2 declined from 3 to 1. While the top down style
of management is a reality at Pakistani universities, the faculty respondents, when given the
choice, seemed to prefer the Director taking on fewer of the curriculum tasks.
The ratings for the Dean in this case underwent an even more dramatic decrease especially where
the rating of somewhat important for all the tasks was concerned. The Deans role in
performing these tasks was not rejected completely but there were fewer responses for the ideal
situation versus things in practice.
The tasks performed by the HoD in practice had polled fewer responses in comparison with the
responses for who should perform the tasks. Most significant were the ratings for
monitoring/assessing progress and course evaluation which registered twice as many responses
as in the earlier response to question 33. Additionally the negative ratings on the scale were
negligible for the HoD in the response to question 34. These numbers suggest that respondents
would be comfortable with HoD playing a greater role in the performing of the tasks.
In contrast to the earlier response, there was a decrease in the number of responses for most of
the curriculum tasks for the teacher in question 34. Most noteworthy increase was in the number
of people who thought that teachers role in course evaluation should be extremely important
registering an increase from 1 respondent to 3 in this case.
In question 34, a small number of the respondents rated the outside curriculum specialists role in
performing all tasks, except for grouping and instructing learners, between 1 to 3 which reflected
their interest in having access to outside expertise.

39

5.2

Student Questionnaire

In the student questionnaire (see section 2.4), 65% of the student respondents were male and
35% female and aged between 18 to 25. 80% of the students were enrolled in programmes at
NUST Institute of Information Technology (NIIT) out of which 10% were postgraduate students.
20% of the students were enrolled in BBA at NUST Institute of Management Sciences (NIMS).
Questions 4 elicited the information that 75% students had studied English in the form of
Communication skills and an equal percentage had studied it as English Literature (an
innovatory course introduced at NIMS within the last two years to fulfil course requirements for
enrolment at foreign universities). In question 5, the learners indicated that they were learning
English as a second language. Question 6 revealed that none of the students had ever filled out a
needs assessment questionnaire prior to the start of a course. This tallies with the data supplied
by faculty respondents in question 17 (section 5.1) in which 71% of the respondents commented
that the assessment of learner needs took place through discussions during the initial sessions.
The difference in the percentage of learners saying that they had never filled out assessment
questionnaires and a lower percentage (14%) of faculty respondents saying that needs assessment
had been carried out through questionnaires can be explained by the fact that whereas the
students belonged to NUST some of the faculty respondents belonged to universities other than
NUST and hence followed different practices than NUST faculty members. Question 7 did not
elicit any response. In question 8, 35% of the respondents strongly agreed and 69% agreed
with that needs analysis was a useful tool. The high percentage of those agreeing with the
statement indicates that learners would like to be consulted and to provide input for the kind of
English language course they are eventually taught.
Questions 9 to 10 yielded the information that 80% of the respondents had been asked to provide
feedback on the effectiveness of their courses and 65% gave the feedback through questionnaires
and 15% through discussions. The centrality of the learners role in providing feedback reflected
in the teachers response to question 26 in section 5.1 is confirmed by the student response to
question 9. At most Pakistani universities, education has become a competitive commercial
venture that requires client satisfaction. In this case the clients are the students who pay
substantial amounts of money to study at the universities and therefore there is an expectation on
the part of learners that the university administration will ensure the quality of the courses being
taught. Hence, course evaluation questionnaires become important instruments for eliciting

40

student views and opinions for subsequent changes to the course itself. Question 11 showed that
in most of the cases (45%) evaluation took place mid semester and in 30% of the cases it took
place at the end of the course. Only in 5% of the cases was evaluation said to take place
throughout which is a very low percentage in view of the greater utility of ongoing adaptation
(section 3.4.3).
In response to the statement Learner feedback/evaluation can be effective as it can lead to
changes in the developing/organizing of the course in question 12, 25% learners strongly
agreed and 55% agreed with the statement evidencing the learners interest in providing
feedback.
In question 13, there was a marked increase (40%) in respondents who wanted evaluation to take
place throughout as compared to only 5% respondents in question 11 who indicated that they had
experienced ongoing evaluation. This showed that the learners understood the usefulness of
ongoing feedback as it could benefit them rather than only succeeding learners. In question 14,
50% of the learners indicated that they preferred questionnaires as a course evaluation tool. This
preference is understandable in view of the learners cultural background which places a
premium on the value of communication which takes place on paper. Additionally
questionnaires offer the learners much desired anonymity which allows them to speak their
minds without fear of the instructor or the administration. Discussions on the other hand cannot
be anonymous.
The last question (15) was very revealing as it allowed respondents to pick the option they
thought would most impact the kind of feedback they provided. 25% of the respondents picked
option 1-The consideration that the course grade has still not been finalized and your feedback
may affect the final grading and the same percentage chose option 2 The teacher is well liked
even if the course is not particularly well taught or well organized leading to the conclusion that
anonymity and personal liking for the teacher impact the way learners evaluate to a great extent.
Like or dislike of the teacher were overriding considerations for at least 20% of the students as
they picked options 2 and 3 as factors which would affect their feedback. The responses to this
question indicate that learner feedback is not neutral and is impacted by whether the learners will
remain unnamed when providing feedback and also on how much they like or dislike the teacher.
Thus, evaluation of teachers by learners should not always be regarded as the best indicator of
programme effectiveness.

41

5.3

The faculty interviews

In order to triangulate the results, interviews were carried out with three respondents. Due to
constraints related to interviewees availability and the time difference between UK and Pakistan
where interviewees 1 and 2 were based, the interviews were conducted via email. Hence the
questions were more structured. This was not ideal but a fair amount of relevant data was still
elicited through these interviews.
5.3.1 Interviews 1 & 2

Respondent 1 heads the Centre of English Language at Agha Khan University in


Pakistan.

Respondent 2 works as a consultant at the Curriculum Wing, Ministry of Education


Pakistan

Interpretation of the faculty questionnaire results suggested that the respondents had little formal
experience in curriculum development (Q7) that needs assessment and course evaluation were
the least implemented processes (Q9), that almost none of the respondents knew of mentoring
programmes at Pakistani universities (Q18) and that faculty induction was either non existent or
informal (Q19 & Q20).The interview questions were designed to confirm these results and to
achieve further understanding of how language programmes are planned and implemented.
When asked how far existing curriculum frameworks could be used in the Pakistani tertiary ESL
context (Q1), they replied that frameworks developed by specialists (were) useful for providing
a holistic view regarding TESL (R1) and that they could be successfully used in the Pakistani
tertiary ESL context (R2). However, R1 suggested that it was important that the national and
local contexts be kept in view so that the frameworks (could) be modified accordingly to make
them more relevant and appropriate and R2 cited the need for training experts in curriculum
design and development and adaptation of frameworks to learners needs and wants as
important factors. It is noteworthy that R1 and R2 urge that curriculum frameworks need to be
contextualized before successful implementation. Frequently, policy making bodies are keen to
implement reforms based on imported concepts only for the implementation to fail at the
classroom level at times primarily due to the fact that there is a complete absence of a social

42

dialogue that would systematically involve teachers, experts and teachers organizations in policy
making (ITACEC Teacher Education Position Paper: 2004, p2).
In question 2, the interviewees were asked about the kind of frameworks they used in developing
English courses for university students. R1 responded that no one curriculum framework is used
for designing courses. Depending on the needs assessment, courses in higher education are
generally a mix of General English (with the focus on Communication Skills) and ESP and R2
commented that she used a framework that sets standards for various competencies, identifies
benchmarks at different developmental levels and indicates student learning outcomes. It is
interesting to note how the conception of a curriculum framework for each respondent is a
different one. As Cornbleth (1990, p12) notes, our conceptions and ways of reasoning about
curriculum reflect and shape how we see, think and talk about, study and act on the education
made available to students. R1 seems to think of it as more of a process dependent on what the
students need and R2 appears to view it as more product focused in describing it in terms of
competencies, developmental levels, and outcomes. The divergence in the views of two
experienced ELT professionals over the meaning of curriculum frameworks is significant
because it is this divergence that is the cause of arbitrary language programme design and
implementation at Pakistani universities.
When questioned as to the most important curriculum process in their framework (Q3), R1
answered needs assessment whereas R2 referred to student assessment. R2s response seems
to represent the prevailing view of educational policymakers in Pakistan who believe that student
assessment is the most visible authentication of a programmes effectiveness. This view is
culturally rooted as stakeholders ranging from parents, students to teachers see good student
results as a sign that the programme has been effective.
The next question (4) focused on whether implementation of curriculum processes should be the
primary responsibility of the teacher. R1 admitted that this was partly true but qualified this by
calling for the overall support of the administration. R2 disagreed with the statement and
explained that the teacher could not be primarily responsible for the curriculum processes as a
process.requires stages to do or achieve something and as stages progress, and expand so do
the sharing of responsibilities. R1s response seems to have been made with teacher autonomy
in mind although she does call for administrative support: R2s approach to this is to advocate a
more collaborative effort in implementing curriculum processes although it is not entirely clear

43

from her response whether she favours collaboration or delegation in the discharging of such
responsibilities.
In question 5, the interviewees were asked to give their views on the role of needs assessment in
the development of effective language courses. R1 responded that needs assessment (was)
critical in determining the type of curriculum as well as in designing the courses in terms of
number of hours, teaching faculty, and development of materials and R2 responded in a similar
vein by saying that needs assessment is of prime importance in the development of effective
language courses. The discussion in section 3.3 supports the need for assessing learning needs.
R1, in this case, views needs assessment holistically. It is meant to be a process that determines
all aspects of the course not just the curriculum.
In the next question (6), interviewees were asked whether they agreed that course effectiveness
could not be indicated through the testing of student proficiency. R1 agreed that assessment
(was) different from evaluation but qualified her agreement by saying that the classroom work
and test results of students remain (ed) an integral part of the evaluation process apart from
students feedback, and peer evaluation. R2s answer echoed that of R1 in that she thought of
assessment as a broad concept involving procedures to gather information about nature and
quality of students work.
Both responses reflect the prevailing view amongst Pakistani educators that assessment of
students is important and a good indicator of the success of a course. In question 7, the
interviewees were asked to comment on the importance of course evaluation and its potential use
within their context. R1 stated that course evaluation both formative and summative (was)
crucial in developing and strengthening the courses and added that in our institution all courses
and workshops are evaluated on a regular basis and the feedback is shared with all relevant stake
holders. R2 also regarded course evaluation to be of prime importance as a curriculum process
and rationalised that the potential use for such an evaluation determines the emerging needs,
lacks and wants of students, course design and the instructor. It in fact lays the foundation for
future objectives and attainment targets. Both interviewees seemed to view course evaluation as
a developmental and not just a remedial process which is a positive trend in so far as
implementing developmental evaluation is concerned.
The interviewees were next asked whether the establishment of faculty support structures would
make course implementation more effective. R1 acknowledged faculty development to be very

44

essential for the growth of departmental programmes and added that in her institution, support is
continuously extended to all faculty through long term Faculty Development Awards for higher
studies. Faculty are also encouraged and supported for attending short courses, and seminars. R2
said that support structures were necessary as the faculty was generally untrained. She saw
support structures as facilitating the development of faculty. She added that the implementation
of courses (was) not a one way process but needed to be supplemented by such support
structures.
Finally the interviewees were asked whether faculty support structures such as Mentoring
programmes and/or peer coaching could help faculty members receive the kind of support they
needed for teaching a course more effectively (Q9). R1 was in full agreement with the
establishment of mentoring programmes and peer coaching relationships as these could provide
the cutting edge to successful programmes. She added that her department was also making an
effort to set up a mentoring programme for departmental use. R2 also agreed with the need for
such programmes and went so far as to say that mentoring by seasoned senior members and peer
coaching (was) much more valuable than taking up courses on teaching that generally qualifi(ed)
teachers with a mere grade.
In both cases, the interviewees seem to share the belief that faculty development is important and
that supportive relationships can be a major contributory factor in making language programmes
successful. The interviewees comments are in keeping with Motts (2002, p7) appraisal of
mentoring which allows it to
play a crucial role in negotiating the challenges of discontinuities, transitions, and new
roles undertaken in the developmental process. A person new in a career field or life
stage, for instance, can benefit from the encouragement, counsel, and shared experiences
of a more experienced person who can share perspectives, ask critical questions, and
provide opportunities for reflection and growth.
5.3.2 Interview 3
Respondent 3 (R3) heads the Department of English at Lahore University of Management
Sciences (LUMS) and is currently completing her PhD at Warwick
The interview with R3, although semi structured, was based on the major issues under review in
this dissertation. The interviewee was questioned as to who was responsible for Curriculum
design at LUMS. R3 described the academic environment at LUMS as very independent and
autonomous and said that fortunately, for us at LUMS, Curriculum Design (CD) is entirely the
45

responsibility of the Faculty member who is teaching This was evidenced in that teachers at
LUMS had complete authority in terms of (that) we could negotiate what we wanted to teach,
how we wanted to teach itas long as the learning outcomes were being met. However certain
guidelines that were set by HoD or Dean of the School had to be followed although more or
less the responsibility of CD was the teachers Curriculum design and development are thus
seen as being the direct concern of the teacher in question. R3 does not elaborate on what kind of
training, support and resources are available to teachers who do not have training in CD. It may
be kept in mind that while teacher autonomy is a positive thing for teacher confidence and
growth, if, as Nunan (in Gatehouse: 2001) asserts, teachers are to be the ones responsible for
developing the curriculum, they need the time, the skills and the support to do so. Support may
include curriculum models and guidelines and may include support from individuals acting in a
curriculum advisory position. The provision of such support cannot be removed and must not be
seen in isolation, from the curriculum (Nunan, 1987, p. 75). Yet it is a matter of concern, if we
go by what is practised at LUMS and the level of training for CD mentioned by faculty
respondents (Q 7) that teachers at universities are autonomous but for the most part untrained to
teach at the tertiary level.
The interview then moved onto a discussion of needs assessment and its role in terms of R3s
experiences. According to R3 for needs assessment (NA) basically what the teacher did was that
she looked at the profile of the students.available on the computer to the teacherlooked at
their O level and A level results, how many FSc students were there.and accordingly designed
the course. R3 qualified this by saying that the practice was to keep majority of the students in
mind and that the assessment was not individual need based as such. Another process usually
followed was for the interviewee to attend the faculty meetings of the department for which she
had to design the English course and get input from the teachers as to the kind of English
proficiency they required from their students. Essentially, R3 described assessment of learner
needs as teacher driven which was linked to the cultural values of Pakistan which pivoted on
the idea we have to teach them and they have to learnthat is rightly or wrongly the paradigm
we are working in. R3 acknowledged that sometimes the students would resent not having a
greater say in what they were taught but justified this by saying that you cant cater to individual
tastes in a class of 40 plus. When asked if learners approached her if they wanted additions to
the course outline, R3 indicated that it happens all the time but that usually first year and

46

second year students (didnt) know what (was) good for them frankly although it was her
practice to ask all learners to discuss what they wanted from the course in initial discussion
sessions. After that there was little room to manoeuvre as the course outline had to be followed.
R3 was then asked if ongoing needs analysis could be helpful for teachers who found it difficult
to adjust to student requirements as a matter of course. R3 agreed with the utility of ongoing
needs analysis but voiced practical reservations as it was difficult to implement changes arising
out of ongoing NA as the assessment process was already in place. However, she stressed that
these ideas could be used for the next course. R3 also added that if teachers wanted to make
major changes to course design then the usual practice was to present these at departmental
faculty meetings and receive input from colleagues. The interviewee did agree that students
could benefit from formal needs assessment but that that was an observation rather than
something she had learnt through experience. R3s view and experience of needs assessment is
one rooted in practices prevalent throughout Pakistans HE institutions.
While it would be ideal to have ongoing needs analysis and extensive learner input, admittedly,
practical and cultural constraints cannot be removed at will. It is helpful to bear in mind Graves
(2000, p100) observation that needs assessment must be done in such a way that students feel
skilful in participating and see the value of it, both while doing it and in the results. Likewise,
teachers need to learn how to feel skilful in conducting and responding to needs assessment.
Thus an element of skill on the part of all stakeholders is required for participating in, conducting
and responding to needs assessment.
When asked about faculty support structures, R3 observed that it was common practice for
LUMS faculty to collaborate on designing courses. As head of department, she had made it a
point to invite junior colleagues/inductees to observe her classes. She also mentioned that
incidentally a lot of the inductees who had taken her up on that invitation were people she had
known professionally or had taught at one point or the other and hence already looked on her as a
mentor of sorts. However, she admitted that LUMS did not have a formal mentoring
programme although a lot of the mentoring functions were nonetheless performed informally.
The existence of even informal support structures bodes well for new faculty members at LUMS
but formal support structures have the advantage of being durable and less dependent on the
initiative of a particular individual and hence more lasting. The importance of relationships that
help to assimilate and orientate is emphasized by Cawyer, Simonds and Davis (2002, p225) who

47

point out that how easily a new faculty members adjusts and adapts to life in the professoriate is
often dependent on the types of relationships that the newcomer establishes with colleagues and
on the willingness of veteran faculty members to assist newcomers as they learn the ins and outs
of the academy.
With reference to course evaluation, the interviewee observed that evaluation of faculty was
discussed with each teacher and the sandwich approach was taken in that the teachers were
praised and critiqued (my italics). Course evaluation at LUMS took place through the
administering of a end of course questionnaire which was very very well structured and
focused on the teacher, administrative support, course content and the teaching assistants role
and yielded authentic data on how effective the course was.
Finally the interviewee was asked if formalizing certain procedures and making them coherent
would help all Pakistani tertiary institutions. Initially R3 equated this with prescriptive measures
imposed by the Higher Education Commission and observed that this would be
counterproductive as it would endanger teacher autonomy. However once the question was
clarified to mean putting in place better needs assessment and course evaluation procedures and
support structures so that inductees could find it easier to implement curriculum, R3 agreed that
this would be very helpful as there were few trained teachers at tertiary level in Pakistan. In
analyzing the HE sectors approach to evaluation in Pakistan it is important to note that end of
course evaluation, while achieving many things, is more advantageous to the succeeding courses
if any. Yet this is a model that seems to be followed by a substantial percentage of Pakistani
universities the usefulness of which practice does seem to be called into question when weighed
against the fact that 40% of the students polled (section 5.2, Q13) showed a preference for
evaluation to take place throughout the course in contrast to 15% who opted for end of course
evaluation.

48

CHAPTER SIX
6.0

Recommendations and Conclusion

6.1

Recommendations

The aim of this study was to look into how curriculum design and development for English
language courses at Pakistani universities and faculty induction of ELT professionals took place.
In looking at curriculum design and development, the primary focus was on needs assessment
and course evaluation. A parallel focus was on faculty mentoring as a way to enable the new
faculty member to become a vital and productive member of the professoriate (Cawyer,
Simonds and Davis: 2002, p239). What emerged from the interpretation of questionnaire and
interview data was a strong confirmation of the following

English language faculty at Pakistani HE institutions are not sufficiently trained in


curriculum design and development

Needs assessment is conducted in an individualistic and informal manner by ELT


professionals

Course/programme evaluation is seen solely as an evaluative exercise rather than having


developmental implications

Faculty induction is at best informal and arbitrary and at worst non existent

Language programme design processes are viewed as discrete rather than interdependent

The current situation in Pakistan fits the pattern Richards (1990, p25) describes
Program or curriculum development in language teaching has not generally been viewed
as an integrated and interdependent set of processes that involves careful data gathering,
planning, experimentation, monitoring, consultation, and evaluation. Rather, simplistic
solutions are often advocated that address only one dimension of the process, for example
by advocating changes in teaching techniques, methods, learning styles, technologies,
materials, or teacher preparation. If the field of second and foreign language teaching is
to attain the degree of rigor found in other areas of education, however, a more
comprehensive basis for educational practices is needed
As long as Pakistani policymakers and educators continue to take a disjointed view of curriculum
development and faculty induction, English language programmes will continue to be
fragmented and less than effective in achieving learning objectives.

49

This study also revealed the following

Needs assessment although practiced inconsistently, is considered of prime importance


by faculty and students alike

Course evaluation appears to be client/learner driven

Mentoring programmes as long as they follow culturally appropriate models are


supported as an induction tool for new teachers

In view of these, the following recommendations are made to improve the situation vis a vis
curriculum development and faculty induction for Pakistani ELT professionals.

ELT professionals need to be trained in the curriculum processes most especially that of
analyzing learning needs because teacher assumptions and collegial consultation about
what needs to be taught give only an incomplete picture of how to make the learning
process more effective. One of the most important tasks at hand is to ensure that ELT
professionals are conversant with needs analysis because effective teaching can only take
place if teachers have awareness about the importance of assessing learning needs and the
skills to conduct such assessment. The customization of courses can not only capture the
interest of the learners but also produce better learning outcomes. Partnership and
dialogue between the policymakers in Pakistans HE sector and the teaching
professionals is a prerequisite to achieving a culture of

curricular expertise and

creativity.

Educational managers at Pakistani universities also need to accept that there is more to
evaluation than teacher evaluation and more to evaluation procedures than judging a
course by how well students do on tests. Evaluation, if it is to be of any use, needs to be
ongoing and holistic and above all needs to involve the teachers not just as the subject of
the evaluation but as active participants (my italics). What is being suggested is that the
focus of programme evaluation in Pakistani HE institutions needs to go beyond gauging
client satisfaction with the teacher to encompass other aspects of the programme as well.
This will mean a cultural shift in the way evaluation is perceived by those who direct
appraisal of programmes.

Faculty induction is one of the least developed areas in terms of academic management.
In lieu of a standardized and mandatory teacher education programme for tertiary ESL
faculty in Pakistan, customized mentoring programmes are one of the best options to

50

ensure that new faculty negotiate the challenges of induction and teaching as positively as
possible. Faculty mentoring has cultural antecedents too in the way seasoned
professionals are expected to give inductees the benefit of their experience. As long as
these programmes are designed with the Pakistani cultures and institutions in mind,
positive outcomes can be anticipated for the participants. Bodies such as the HEC would
do well to encourage such programmes but the onus of implementation would be on
individual universities as top down directives tend to become diluted once they reach
intended participants. HEC and the HE institutions should also work out a plan to train
mentors from the existing pool of experienced faculty and to ensure financial
compensation for taking on these extra responsibilities otherwise it is possible that such
programmes may not flourish. The ITACEC Teacher Education position paper (2004,
p19) points out that mentoring in Pakistan has failed to take root previously for the
following reasons
o Low or no administration support to ensure quality of the program.
o Bureaucratic rules obstruct incentives and honorarium to mentors seen as
irregular
o Teachers Associations construe this as an additional duty, raising expectations
without adequate compensation
o AKU-IED dependent program for expert pedagogical support.
o Lapses in professional refreshers for mentors resulting in lack of continuity in the
learning process
It is for the HEC and universities to preempt the factors that cause such failure by comprehensive
planning, rational allocation of resources and consultation with participants
Above all, Pakistans HE sector would do well to take note of the fact that good programs are
central to good education and failures in program innovation are not as often failures of
content as failures of contextual planning (Johnson:1989, p24) (my italics).
6.2

Conclusion

It has not been the aim of this dissertation to offer solutions to the inconsistencies inherent in
English language course design and induction procedures in Pakistans Higher education sector
but rather to expose weak areas and to make some broad recommendations. It is hoped that this

51

small scale study can be the basis of further research by those interested in Language programme
design and/or faculty development especially in the ESL context of developing countries such as
Pakistan.

52

Bibliography
Aldred, G and B.Garvey (2000) Learning to produce knowledge-the contribution of mentoring.
Mentoring & Tutoring, Vol 8/3, pp261-272
Alleman, E., J.Cochran., J. Doverspike., and I. Newman (1984). Enriching mentoring
Relationships. Personnel and Guidance Journal, Vol 62, pp 329-332.
Anderson, E. M. and A.L.Shannon. (1995) Toward a conceptualization of mentoring, in
Kerry.T .and A. S. Mayes, (eds.). Issues in mentoring. The Open University: London.
Bell, J. (1999) Doing Your Research Project: A Guide for First-Time Researchers in Education
and Social Science. Open University Press: Buckingham
Berwick, R. (1989) Needs assessment in language programming: from theory to practice, in
R.K Johnson (ed.). The Second language curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Black, R. (1993) Evaluating Social Science Research: An Introduction. London: Sage.
Bogat, G and R. Redner. (1985). How mentoring affects the professional development of
women in psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Vol 16/6, pp 851-859.
Brindley, G. (1989) The Role of needs analysis in adult ESL programme design, in R.K
Johnson (ed.). The Second language curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(pp. 63-78)
Bronstein, P and L.Farnsworth. (1998) Gender Differences in faculty experience of
interpersonal climate and processes for career advancement, Research in Higher Education, Vol
39/5, pp 557-585
Brown, J. D. (1989) Language program evaluation: A synthesis of existing possibilities, in R.
K. Johnson (ed.). The Second Language Curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

53

Bryson, J. (2001) Effective Mentoring Manual: Assessing Competence and Improving Teaching
through Mentoring. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Cawyer,.Simonds,.and Davis. (2002) Mentoring to facilitate socialization: The case of
the new faculty member International Journal of Qualitative Studies in
Education, Vol 15/2, pp225-242
Christison, M.A. and K.J. Krahnke. (1986) Student perceptions of academic language study.
TESOL Quarterly, Vol 20/1, pp 6181
Clutterbuck, D. (2004). Mentor competences: a field perspective, in Clutterbuck.D and G.Lane
(eds.). The Situational Mentor. Aldershot: Gower
Cornbleth, C. (1990) Curriculum in Context. Basingstoke: Falmer Press
Cuddaph, J.L. (2002) The Teachers College New Teacher Institute: Supporting New Teachers
Through Mentoring Relationships, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association (New Orleans, LA, April 1-5, 2002)
Dubin. F and E, Olshtain. (1986) Course design: developing programs and materials for
language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Elliot, B. and J.Calderhead. (1993) Mentoring for teacher development: Possibilities and
caveats, in McIntyre.D, H.Hagger, and M. Wilkin (eds.). Mentoring: Perspectives on schoolbased teacher education. London: Kogan Page
Fabian, H. and A.Simpson. (2002). Mentoring the Experienced Teacher. Mentoring and
Tutoring, Vol 10/2, pp 117-125
Garvey, B. (2004) When mentoring goes wrong, in Clutterbuck.D and G.Lane (eds.). The
Situational mentor. Aldershot: Gower

54

Gatehouse, K (2001) Key Issues in English for Specific Purposes (ESP) Curriculum
Development The Internet TESL Journal, Vol.7/10
http://iteslj.org/Articles/Gatehouse-ESP.html
Goker, S.D. (2006) Impact of peer coaching on self-efficacy and instructional skills in TEFL
teacher education. System, Vol 34/2, pp 239254
Graves, K. (2000) Designing Language Courses: A guide for teachers. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Graves, K. (2001) (1st Edition) A Framework of Course Development Processes, D.Hall.D and
A.Hewings (eds.). Innovation in English Language Teaching.London: Routledge

pp 178-196)

Hadden, R. (1997) Mentoring and coaching. Executive Excellence, Vol 14/4, p 17


Hargreaves, P (1989). DES-IMPL-EVALU-IGN: an evaluators checklist, in R. K. Johnson
(ed.). The Second Language Curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Hargreaves, A. and M. Fullan. (2000) Mentoring in the new millennium. Theory into Practice,
Vol 39/1, pp 50-56
Hativa, N, Barak, R, Simhi, E. (2001) Exemplary university teachers: Knowledge and beliefs
regarding effective teaching dimensions and strategies Journal of Higher Education, Vol 72, pp
699-729.
Hatwood-Futrell, M. (1988) Selecting and Compensating Mentor Teachers: A win- win
scenario Theory into Practice, Vol 27/3, pp 223-25
Head, F.A,. A.J. Reiman and L.Thies-Sprinthall. (1992) The reality of mentoring complexity in
its process and function in Bey, T.M. and C.T.Holmes, (eds.). Mentoring: Contemporary
Principles and Issues. Reston, VA: Association of Teacher Educators

55

Healy, C. and A.Welchert (1990) Mentoring relations: a definition to advance research and
practice Educational Researcher, Vol 19/9, pp. 17-21
HEC website (2006) http://www.hec.gov.pk/new/QualityAssurance/LI_ELTR.htm#3
Holstein, J. and J.Gubruim. (1997) Active Interviewing, in D.Silverman (ed.). Qualitative
Research: Theory, Method and Practice. Sage: London
ITACEC research paper. (2004) From Teacher Education to Professional Development: a draft
position paper.
http://www.itacec.org/research/Teacher%20Education%20Paper.doc

Johnson, K.R. (1989). A decision-making framework for the coherent language


curriculum, in K.R.Johnson (ed.). The Second Language Curriculum. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press
Kanuka, H. (2005). Does mentoring faculty make a difference? Teaching and Learning in
Higher Education, Vol 39 pp1-3
http://www.mcmaster.ca/stlhe/documents/Number%2039.pdf
Kartje, J.V. (1996) O mentor! My mentor! Peabody Journal of Education, Vol 71/1, pp114-25.

Kelly, M., T. Beck, and J. Ap Thomas. (1995) Mentoring as a Staff Development


Activity, in Kerry.T and A.S. Mayes (eds.). Issues in Mentoring.
Buckingham: Open University Press
Kerka, S. (1998) New perspectives on mentoring ERIC Digest No. 194
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/80/2a/2b/00.pdf
Kerry, T and A.S.Mayes. (1995). Issues in Mentoring. London and New York: Routledge.
56

Kiely, R and P. Rea Dickins. (2005) Programme Evaluation in Language Education.


New York: Palgrave Macmillan
Kram, K. E. (1983). Phases of the mentoring relationship. Academy of Management Journal,
Vol 26, pp 608-625
Little, J.W. (1990) The mentor phenomenon and the social organization of teaching. Review of
Research in Education, Vol 16, pp 297-351
Luna, G and D.L Cullen. (1995) Empowering the Faculty: Mentoring Redirected and Renewed.
ASHE- ERIC Higher Education Report No. 3. Washington D.C.: The George Washington
University. Graduate School of Education and Human Development.
Mager, G.M. (1992 ). The Place of Induction in Becoming a Teacher, in DeBolt, G.P (ed.).
Teacher Induction and Mentoring: School based collaborative Programs. New York: SUNY
Mertz, N.T. (2004) Whats a mentor anyway? Educational Administration Quarterly,
Vol. 40/4, pp 541-560
Mott,V. (2002) Emerging Perspectives on Mentoring: Fostering Adult Learning and
Development, in Hansman,C (ed.). Critical Perspectives on Mentoring: Trends and Issues.
Ohio: ERIC Information Series No. 388
http://www-tcall.tamu.edu/erica/docs/mott/mentoring1.pdf
Neal, J.C. (1992) Mentoring a teacher development activity that avoids formal evaluation of the
protg in Bey, T.M. and C.T.Holmes, (eds.). Mentoring: Contemporary Principles and Issues.
Reston, VA: Association of Teacher Educators

57

Neuman, W, L. (2000) Social Research Methods: Qualitative And Quantitative Approaches.


Boston; London: Allyn and Bacon.
Newcombe, E (1988). Mentoring programs for new teachers. Philadelphia, PA: Research for
Better Schools, Inc.
Nunan, D. (1988). Learner centred Curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D. (1992). Research Methods in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press
Patton, M.Q. (1994). Developmental Evaluation, Evaluation Practice. Vol. 15/3. pp. 311-319.
Patton, M.Q. (1996). A world larger than formative and summative. Evaluation Practice, Vol
17/2 pp 131-144
Pennington, M.C. (1989) Faculty Development for Language Programs, in R. K. Johnson (ed.).
The Second Language Curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Pennington, M.C (1992) Second class or economy? The status of the English language teaching
profession in tertiary education
http://sunzi1.lib.hku.hk/hkjo/view/10/1000026.pdf
Posner, G.J and A.N. Rudnitsky (1986). Course design: A guide to curriculum development for
teachers. New York: Longman.
Rea Dickins, P and K.Germaine. (1992) Evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Richards, J.C. (1990) The Language Teaching Matrix. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Roberts, J. (1998) Language Teacher Education. London: Arnold.

58

Roberts, A. (2000) Mentoring Revisited: a phenomenological reading of the literature,


Mentoring & Tutoring, Vol 8/2, pp145-170
Ruane, J. (2005) Essentials of Research Methods: A Beginner's Guide to Social Science
Research . Oxford : Blackwell
Sands, RG, L.A.Parson, and J.Duane. (1991). Faculty mentoring faculty in a public university,
Journal of Higher Education, Vol 62/2. pp 174-193
Schempp, P., A.Sparkes, and T.Templin, (1993). The micropolitics of teacher induction
American Educational Research Journal, Vol 30, pp 447-472.
Schon, D.A. (1983).The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals think in action.
Aldershot: Arena.
Siskin, H.J and J.Davis. (2000). Historical, Theoretical, and Pragmatic Perspectives on
Mentoring in Rifkin,B (ed.). Mentoring Foreign Language Teaching Assistants, Lecturers, and
Adjunct Faculty. Issues in Language Program Direction: A Series in Annual Volumes.
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/80/23/94/71.pdf
Smith, M. K. (2000) 'Curriculum theory and practice' the encyclopedia of informal education,
www.infed.org/biblio/b-curric.htm.
Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. London:
Heinemann
Stufflebeam, D. (2001) Evaluation Models 2, New Directions for Evaluation. Vol 2001/89, pp
7-98

59

Tolentino, B.W. (1999) Factors in successful mentoring relationships. Paper presented at the
annual AERA conference. Montreal, Canada.
Trochim, W.M.K. (2005). Introduction to Evaluation,
http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/intreval.htm, date accessed 3/7/06
UNESCO statistical yearbook. (1998) Pakistan Curriculum Design and Development
www.ibe.unesco.org/curriculum/Asia%20Networkpdf/ndreppk.pdf , date accessed 11/8/06
Weir, C.,and J. Roberts. (1994). Evaluation in ELT. Oxford: Blackwell
Wray, A.K., Trott,.and A.Bloomer. (1988) Projects in Linguistics. London: Arnold.
Wright, C.A and S.D.Wright. (1987). The role of mentors in the career development of young
professionals Family Relations, Vol 36/2, pp 294-308

60

APPENDIX I-FACULTY QUESTIONNAIRE


Faculty Questionnaire: Development and Organization of English Language Courses
Through this survey we would like to ascertain how English language courses are developed, organized
and implemented at university level in Pakistan. The focus of the research is on how course effectiveness
can be increased through the introduction/strengthening of needs assessment procedures, comprehensive
course evaluation and faculty support structures. This survey is conducted to generate research data for a
dissertation which a NIIT faculty member is currently working on at the University of Warwick UK. We
are interested in your personal opinions and perceptions as well as in factual information. All the
information you provide will be treated in the strictest confidence. The questionnaire consists of 34
questions and should not take more than 30 minutes to complete.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1. Please indicate your gender
Male

Female

2. Check the box with the age group appropriate to you


25-35
36-45
46-55

56-65

3. Please indicate the designation you hold by checking appropriate box


Lecturer
Assistant Professor
Associate Professor
Professor
Other (please specify) --------------------------

4. What is your educational qualification?


MA
MPhil
PhD
Other (please specify) --------------------------

5. What is the length of your teaching experience at the college/university level?


______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________
6. Please describe any pre service and/or in-service teacher training you have received.

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________

61

7. Please describe any training and/or experience you may have in curriculum development

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
8. Which courses have you taught so far? Please check the boxes appropriate to you.
English
Communication skills
Technical communication
English literature
Business Communication
Other (please specify)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. Which aspect (s) of organizing a course have you ever been responsible for during your
teaching career? Tick relevant box (es)
Conducting needs analysis/assessment
Setting goals and objectives
Conceptualizing content
Creating/Adapting materials
Teaching the course
Evaluating the course
Other (please specify)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10. Who is responsible for running the English Language and related courses at the university?
Tick the appropriate box(es)
Department of English
Language Support Centre
Humanities Dept/Division
Other (please specify)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

62

11. What role do language courses have at your college/institute/university?


Core subject
Elective
Support subject
Remedial
Other (please specify)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12. At what level are language courses taught at your college/institute/university?


Undergraduate
Postgraduate
Other (please specify)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

13. Are the language courses graded?


Yes
No
14. If yes to 13, how are the courses graded?
Pass/Fail
On the same pattern as core
subjects
Other (please specify)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

15. Who decides the syllabus and books/materials for the course? Tick as many box (es) as
applicable.
Ministry of Education
University
Institute
Teacher
Learner
Other (please specify)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

63

NEEDS ASSESSMENT
16. Is needs analysis/assessment of learner needs conducted at any stage in the organization of the
course?
Yes
No
17. If yes to 16, what form does it take?
Questionnaire given at beginning of
course
Discussion with students in the initial
sessions
Other (please specify)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MENTORING
18. Do you know of a formal mentoring* programme in any Pakistani university?
Yes
No
Not sure

* The process in which an experienced colleague is assigned to an inexperienced individual


and assists in a training or general support role
19. Does your college/institute/university have a particular teacher induction/support policy which
may involve senior management and/or experienced colleagues guiding inductees and/or
supporting teachers with organizing/teaching a course?
Yes
No
20. If yes to 19, what kind of teacher support structures (for e.g. a mentoring programme and/or
peer development through cooperation) does it provide? Please describe briefly.

_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________

64

21. If you have been mentored through any support structure during your career, please describe
the kind of support you received briefly.

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
______________________________
22. Course effectiveness can be increased if faculty is supported through support structures
such as a mentoring programme. (If you have been mentored, please answer this question
based on your experiences OR if you have not been supported in this way before, please
answer the question on what value you assign to such support structures.)
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree

23. In what ways would you expect faculty support structures to facilitate teachers?
(A)
Benefiting from the experience of more experienced teachers
Help in adjusting to institutional culture
Sharing of knowledge

(B)
Please give your views on how support structures may facilitate teachers.

___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________

65

24. Details of the six types on mentoring models are given below. Which model or combination of
models is likely to function best in your institution and Why?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Six types of mentors


Traditonal mentors are usually older authority figures who, over a long time, protect, advocate for and
nurture their protgs.
Supportive bosses are people in a direct supervisory relationship with their protgs like traditional mentors,
supportive bosses reach and guide, but they function more as coaches.
Organizational sponsors are top level managers who see that their protgs are promoted within the
organisation.
Professional mentors comprise a variety of career counsellors and advisers. protgs pay for services from
these mentors.
Patrons are people who use their financial resources and status to help protgs prepare for and launch their
careers.
Invisible godparents help protgs reach career goals without their knowing it, they make behind the scenes
arrangements and recommendations.

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
____________

25. The mentors role is frequently explained in terms of a range of functions. Five key functions
vital to effective mentoring are:
1. Assessing
2. Counselling
3. Managing
4. Supporting
5. Teaching
More than one person in an institution may perform these functions. Complete an audit of your
institution showing who performs which mentoring function of functions
Place a ! in the appropriate column against each member of staff involved in a particular
activity.

66

For example:
Assessing
Staff involved
Deputy Head

Counselling

Managing

Supporting

Teaching

AUDIT OF MENTORING FUNCTIONS


Assessing

Counselling

Managing

Supporting

Teaching

Staff involved
Director
Dean
Head of
Department
Peer
Administration
Other (please
specify)
--------------------

COURSE EVALUATION
26. Who evaluates the effectiveness of the course? Tick as many box (es) as applicable.
Administrators
Learners
Teachers
Outside evaluators
Other (please specify)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

27. What is evaluated in the course? Tick as many box (es) as applicable.
Quality of teaching
Content of syllabus
Materials
Activities
Effectiveness of programme
Other (please specify)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

67

28. When is the course evaluated? Tick as many box (es) as applicable.

At the end of the course


During the course
Some time after the course has ended

29. How is it evaluated? Tick as many box (es) as applicable.


Observation
Reflective journals
Questionnaires
Discussion

If evaluation is done differently in your context, then please briefly explain below:

___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________
30. What happens to the evaluation?
Documented and set aside
Changes made to course as a result
Results shared in the form of research
Discussion amongst faculty
Other (please specify)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

31. What does evaluation mean to you? Tick the appropriate box (es).
Evaluation of teacher/teaching
Evaluation of syllabus activities materials
Overall course effectiveness
Other (please specify)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

68

MISCELLANEOUS
32. In your experience, course effectiveness can be impacted by which of the following reasons.
Tick the appropriate box (es).
Unclear goals and objectives
Lack of appropriate administrative arrangements
Problems caused by students
Lack of information for learners about the course
Lack of skills/experience on the part of teachers
Lack of time for consultation and communication
High teacher turnover
Lack of information for teachers about content of previous courses
Lack of information and induction for new teachers
Lack of support resources (self access etc)
Lack of curriculum guidelines models
Lack of appropriate assessment procedures
Lack of appropriate materials
Heterogeneous groups and diverse learner types or needs
Other (please specify)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

33. Indicate by giving a rating from 1 to 6 (1=most important) who IS primarily responsible for
carrying out the following curriculum tasks:
KEY
A
B
C
D
E
F

University Headquarters
Director
Dean
Head of Department
Teacher in charge of the course
Outside curriculum specialist

Curriculum tasks

Initial needs analysis


Goal and objective setting
Selecting/grading content
Ongoing needs analysis
Grouping learners
Devising learning activities
Instructing learners
Monitoring/assessing progress
Course evaluation

69

34. Indicate by giving a rating from 1 to 6 (1=most important) who, in your opinion, SHOULD
BE primarily responsible for carrying out the following curriculum tasks
KEY
A
B
C
D
E
F

University Headquarters
Director
Dean
Head of Department
Teacher in charge of the course
Outside curriculum specialist

Curriculum tasks

Initial needs analysis


Goal and objective setting
Selecting/grading content
Ongoing needs analysis
Grouping learners
Devising learning activities
Instructing learners
Monitoring/assessing progress
Course evaluation

Thank you for taking the time to answer this questionnaire.

70

APPENDIX II- STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE


Questionnaire: Learner Perspective on Development, Implementation and Evaluation Of English
Language Courses
Through this survey we would like to understand how English language courses are developed, organized
and implemented at university level in Pakistan. The focus of the research is on how course effectiveness
can be increased through the introduction/strengthening of needs assessment procedures, comprehensive
course evaluation and faculty support structures. This survey is conducted to generate research data for a
dissertation which a NIIT faculty member is currently working on as part of the MA ELT programme at
the University of Warwick UK. We are interested in your personal opinions and perceptions as well as in
factual information. All the information you provide will be treated in the strictest confidence. The
questionnaire consists of 15 questions and should not take more than 20 minutes to complete.

1. Please indicate your gender


Male

Female

2. Check the box with the age group appropriate to you


Under 18
18-25
26-30

3. Which programme/degree are you enrolled in?

4. What kind of English language courses have you studied as part of your degree. Check the
appropriate box (es).
English Language
Technical Communication
Communication Skills
Business communication
Other (please specify)___________

5. Are you learning English as a:


First language/Mother tongue
Second Language/Compulsory subject
Other (please specify)___________

71

6. Have you ever filled out a needs analysis/assessment questionnaire asking about your needs as
learners before the start of your course.
Yes
No
7. If yes to 6, please give details of the course for which you filled out the questionnaire and briefly
describe some of the questions you were asked about your needs as learners. For e.g. In the
questionnaire, we were asked if we needed to learn more about writing reports than letter
writing etc

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
____________
8. Learner needs have to be analysed before the syllabus for a language course is decided.
Therefore, Needs analysis of learner needs and wants is a useful tool for making a language
course meaningful for learners. Tick all the boxes that apply:
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree

9. Are you asked to evaluate or provide feedback on the effectiveness of your language course?
Yes
No

10. If yes to 9, what form does it take? Tick all the boxes that apply:
Discussion
Questionnaire
Other (please specify)_________________

72

11. When does the feedback/evaluation take place? Tick all the boxes that apply:
At the end of the course
Mid Course
Throughout the course
Other (please specify)_________________

12. Learner feedback/evaluation can be effective as it can lead to changes in the


developing/organizing of the course. For e.g. the syllabus may be expanded to include new
item or teaching methods modified to benefit the students etc:
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree

13. When should course evaluation be conducted? Tick all the boxes that apply:
At the end of the course
Mid Course
Throughout the course
Other (please specify)_________________

14. Which form of evaluating the course would you prefer? Tick all the boxes that apply:
Discussion
Questionnaire
Other (please specify)_________________

15. Providing feedback on the effectiveness of a course can be affected by the following
factors. Tick all the boxes that apply:

The consideration that the course grade has


still not been finalized and your feedback
may affect the final grading
The teacher is well liked even if the course
is not particularly well taught or well
organized
The course is well designed and well taught
but the teacher is disliked by the class
Other (please specify)_________________

Thank you for taking the time to fill this questionnaire


73

APPENDIX III-SAMPLE INTERVIEW QUESTIONS


Sample Interview Questions
1.

Curriculum design specialists have developed various frameworks that break down the

process of curriculum and course development into components and sub processes. How far
can such frameworks be used in the Pakistani tertiary ESL context?
2.

What kind of curriculum framework do you use when designing an English language

course for university students?


3.

Which is the most important curriculum process in your framework? Please explain why.

4.

The implementation of curriculum processes should be the primary responsibility of the

teacher. Do you agree or disagree? Give reasons for the position you take on this.
5.

Give your views on the role of needs assessment in the development of effective

language courses.
6.

Assessment is distinct from evaluation and course effectiveness cannot be indicated

through the testing of student proficiency. How far do you agree or disagree? Please give reasons
as to your choice.
7.

How important is course evaluation as a curriculum process and what is the potential use

for such evaluation in your context?


8.

Would the establishment of faculty support structures make course implementation more

effective? Please explain your views on this.


9.

Faculty support structures such as Mentoring programmes and/or peer coaching can help

faculty members receive the kind of support they need for teaching a course more effectively. Do
you agree or disagree? Please explain your views.

74

APPENDIX IV-THE QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS


The Questionnaire Results
1.

Please indicate your gender

Four of the faculty respondents were male whereas three were female.
2.

Check the box with the age group appropriate to you.

Age Groups

56-65
14%

25-35
28%

46-55
28%
36-45
28%

3.

Please indicate the designation you hold by checking appropriate box

Assistant Professor
Lecturer
Naval Education Officer

28%
42%
14%

75

4.

What is your educational qualification?

42.%
14.%
14.%
14.%
14.%

5.

MA
MA & MBA
MA & Mphil
MA Eng Lit & MA TEFL
PhD Linguistics

What is the length of your teaching experience at the college/university level?

Respondent 1 had been teaching for 3.5 years and Respondent 5 for 3 years. Respondent 6
had been teaching at university level for 10 years, Respondent 2 for 12 years, and
Respondent 4 for 14 years. Respondent 7 had been teaching at the tertiary level for 20 years
whereas Respondent 3 had been teaching at that level for 33 years.

6.

Please describe any pre service and/or in-service teacher training you have received.

Respondent 1
Respondent 2

Respondent 3
Respondent 4

Respondent 5
Respondent 6
Respondent 7
7.

Certificate in Professional Studies in Education, University of Bradford UK and The


British Council Teacher Training Certificate
14 weeks course in Instructional Techniques in 1978.
4 weeks education course in 1982.
One week course in Study Skills in 2005.
One week course in ESP in 2006.
Dip TEIL-7 (UGC), MATEFL, Officers Basic Course (Education Corps) Advanced
Officers Course. Research Methodology Course One Month Workshop on Writing Skills

Dip in teaching English as Foreign Language (One Year)

Dip (One Year) in teaching of English language as international language.

ELT Methodology Course

Study Skills Course


Teaching language through literature
None
Inservice workshops and courses
PG D in TEFL. Varied inservice teacher training workshops

Please describe any training and/or experience you may have in curriculum development

Respondent 1
Respondent 2
Respondent 3

None

Have the experience of developing curriculum of English at university level


Had this experience while I was performing as HoD at several training /educational
institutions. We worked out goal / objectives detailed and block syllabi .

76

Respondent 4

Curriculum development as part of Dip Course


Developed courses at PNA and PNEC
I have been involved in designing the course plans to be taught to the undergraduate
students of software and telecom engineering to help improve their communication
skills both in the domains of writing and speaking. At NIMS, I have really enjoyed
the experience of teaching English literature to the BBA students that they could
possibly relate with their core subject corporate and management sector.
Intensive training through workshops. Experience of formulating English language
curriculum for public/private sector schools of Pakistan Grades 1-12. Supervising
Humanities curricula for abovementioned grades
Normally only as part of teacher training programmes

Respondent 5

Respondent 6
Respondent 7

8.

Which courses have you taught so far?

Courses Taught By Respondents


100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

English

Communication
skills

Technical
communication

77

English literature

Business
Communication

Other

10.

Conceptualizing
content

Setting goals and


objectives

Organizing a course

Creating/Adapting
materials

Department of English
Humanities and Sciences
Division
Language Support Centre
14%

42%
71%

78

Who is responsible for running the English Language and related courses at the university? Tick the appropriate box(es)

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Conducting needs
analysis/assessment

Which aspect (s) of organizing a course have you ever been responsible for during your teaching career?

Teaching the course

9.

Evaluating the course

11.

What role do language courses have at your college/institute/university?

Core
Elective
Support
Remedial

12.

57%
57%
14%

At what level are language courses taught at your college/institute/university?

Level of Courses

100
80
60
40
20
0

13.

Undergraduate

Postgraduate

Are the language courses graded?


Yes
No

All respondents indicated that the courses were graded.


14.

If yes to 12, how are the courses graded?

The respondents indicated that the courses were graded on the same pattern as core
subjects.

79

15.

Who decides the syllabus and books/materials for the course?

Learner
28%

Ministry of
Other Education
0%
14%

University
42%

Institute
14%
Teacher
85%

16.
Is needs analysis/assessment of learner needs conducted at any stage in the organization of
the course?
Five of the respondents indicated that needs analysis of learner needs was conducted whereas two
respondents indicated that it was not carried out in the teaching of their courses.
17.

If yes, what form does it take?


Questionnaire given at beginning of course
Discussion with students in the initial sessions

18.

14.%
71.%

Do you know of a formal mentoring* programme in any Pakistani university?


Respondent 1
Respondent 2
Respondent 3
Respondent 4
Respondent 5
Respondent 6
Respondent 7

Yes
Not sure
Yes
Not Sure
No
No
Not sure

80

19.
Does your college/institute/university have a particular teacher induction/support policy
which may involve senior management and/or experienced colleagues guiding inductees and/or
supporting teachers with organizing/teaching a course?
Respondent 1
Respondent 2
Respondent 3
Respondent 4
Respondent 5
Respondent 6
Respondent 7

No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes

20.
If yes to 19, what kind of teacher support structures (for e.g. a mentoring programme
and/or peer development through cooperation) does it provide? Please describe briefly.
Respondent 1
Respondent 2
Respondent 3
Respondent 4
Respondent 5
Respondent 6
Respondent 7

NA
NA
A junior faculty remains understudy to a senior member for six months.
Improvement takes place through advice, guidance and encouragement
Senior faculty of dept attends the lecture and guides and counsels
NA
NA
Peer development through cooperation and peer observation

21.
If you have been mentored through any support structure during your career, please
describe the kind of support you received briefly.
Respondent 1
Respondent 2
Respondent 3

Respondent 4
Respondent 5

NA
NA
As junior in the department I was attached with a senior member. HoD
often visited the class. I did not hesitate to clarify points with
experienced members. Departmental seminars were held on weekly
basis.
Early stages, colleagues guided how to manage a class
In the previous semester I taught one course at Air University, where
department of humanities is headed by a senior language teacher with a
great deal of experience, throughout the semester, the interaction with
her was quite enlightening as it enabled me to discover new dimensions
of language teaching, and helped me explore some new and interesting
teaching material and manuals, good enough to meeting the needs of

my students at various places


Respondent 6
Respondent 7

NA
Unstructured modelling of ones own teaching on senior colleagues
teaching style

81

22.
Course effectiveness can be increased if faculty is supported through support structures
such as a mentoring programme. (If you have been mentored, please answer this question based on
your experiences and if you have not been supported in this way before, please answer the question on
what value you assign to such support structures.)

Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree

23.

57%.
42%
-

In what ways would you expect faculty support structures to facilitate teachers?
(A)

Faculty Support Structures


100
80
60
40
20
0
Benefiting from Help in
Sharing of
the experience adjusting to knowledge
of more
institutional
experienced culture
teachers

82

(B) Please give your views on how support structures may facilitate
teachers.
24. Details of the six types on mentoring models are given below. Which model or
combination of models is likely to function best in your institution and Why?
Respondent 1

None

Respondent 2

Experienced teachers can help the new entrants in the profession


in many ways. They can guide them,
Coach them and share their knowledge and experience with
them. They can also facilitate their adjustment in the new
environment
They help in making the whole environment congenial . They
help in building rapport and developing confidence and esprit de
Corps.
To new teachers, it helps to plan, adjust and implement
First of all it could help one in understanding the needs of the
students at different levels, it could also help one in finding out
the difficult areas of how to create motivation and interest among
students for a course that is not their core subject, besides, it
could be helpful in devising and trying new and innovative
methods/methodologies by encouraging one to be little more
experimental and unique
serve as starting points for teachers
give them directions for teaching
help them to fill gaps in own skills and knowledge
Structured mentoring programmes for new teachers can help
them improve, learn, adjust to new teaching environment

Respondent 3

Respondent 4
Respondent 5

Respondent 6

Respondent 7

24. Details of the six types on mentoring models are given below. Which model or
combination of models is likely to function best in your institution and Why?

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Six types of mentors


Traditonal mentors are usually older authority figures who, over a long time, protect, advocate for and
nurture their protgs.
Supportive bosses are people in a direct supervisory relationship with their protgs like traditional mentors,
supportive bosses reach and guide, but they function more as coaches.
Organizational sponsors are top level managers who see that their protgs are promoted within the
organisation.
Professional mentors comprise a variety of career counsellors and advisers. protgs pay for services from
these mentors.
Patrons are people who use their financial resources and status to help protgs prepare for and launch their
careers.
Invisible godparents help protgs reach career goals without their knowing it, they make behind the scenes
arrangements and recommendations.

83

Respondent 1

Traditional and Supportive. Culturally suited to context of


teacher

Respondent 2

Traditional mentors: First choice is the best choice as it employs


a convenient and comprehensive approach.
Traditional mentors and supportive bosses
Traditional mentors and supportive bosses The combination of
these will help develop confidence in learners

Respondent 3
Respondent 4

Respondent 5

Respondent 6

Respondent 7

I think no 4 and 5 in the initial stages and no 6 when such system


is somehow established in organizations. Professional mentors
and patrons can help teachers finding his own ways through their
careers. They could also help them discover their research
interests in the long run which would definitely help their careers
development. One such experience I have had in participating a
small research group where senior faculty members and
professionals share their experiences with the junior ones and in
many ways it helps them develop and define their future
teaching/research interests clearly and more objectively.
supportive bosses and professional mentors
supportive boss facilitates adjustments required in new
organizational culture and ensures tension free environment
which aids teaching/learning process
professional mentoring offers a professional approach which is
more structured to individual needs
a combination of both should ensure good mentoring
Supportive bosses and traditional mentors as these would fit
within the matrix of existing social relationships between
inductees and senior colleagues

84

Managing
20.00-40.00

40.00-60.00

Supporting

60.00-80.00

85

80.00-100.00

Staff involved

Director

Dean

Head of Department

Peer

Audit of Mentoring Functions

Counselling

0.00-20.00

Assessing

More than one person in an institution may perform these functions. Complete an audit of your institution showing who performs
which mentoring function of functions

25 The mentors role is frequently explained in terms of a range of functions. Five key functions vital to effective mentoring are:
6. Assessing
7. Counselling
8. Managing
9. Supporting
10. Teaching

Teaching

20

40

60

80

100

Administrators

Learners

86

Teachers

Outside
evaluators

Who Evaluates Effectiveness

26 Who evaluates the effectiveness of the course?

27.

What is evaluated in the course?


What is Evaluated
100
80
60
40
20
0

28.

Quality of t eaching

Cont ent of syllabus

M aterials

Act ivities

Other

When is the course evaluated?


At the end of the course
During the course
Some time after the course has ended
During and at the end of the course

29

Effect iveness of
programme

42%
57%

How is it evaluated?
Observation
Reflective journals
Questionnaires
Discussion

42%
100%
42%

If evaluation is done differently in your context, then please briefly explain below:
Respondent 5

Sometimes the performance is evaluated even by Dean or


HoD himself stepping into the class during the lectures
and it is also done by students by filling a questionnaire
twice in the semester, however the one I find most
effective is the course evaluation workshop at the end of
each semester in which other faculty members share and
hear each others experiences and suggest ways to
improve

87

30.

What happens to the evaluation?


Documented and set aside
Changes made to course as a result
Results shared in the form of research
Discussion amongst faculty
Other (please specify) Serves as an input for

teachers annual assessment

31

85%
14%
57%
14%

What does evaluation mean to you?

Evaluation of teacher/teaching
Evaluation of syllabus activities materials
Overall course effectiveness
Other (please specify)_________________________

88

85%
71%
100%

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

89

Lack of appropriate administrative arrangements


Problems caused by students
Lack of skills/experience on the part of teachers
Lack of time for consultation and communication
Lack of information for teachers about content of previous coursesLack of information and induction for new teachers
Lack of curriculum guidelines models
Lack of appropriate assessment procedures
Heterogeneous groups and diverse learner types or needs
Other

Factors Affecting Course Effectiveness

In your experience, course effectiveness can be impacted by which of the following reasons.

Unclear goals and objectives


Lack of information for learners about the course
High teacher turnover
Lack of support resources (self access etc)
Lack of appropriate materials

32.

University Headquarters
Director
Dean
Head of Department
Teacher in charge of the course
Outside curriculum specialist

4
2
-

Goal and objective setting


Selecting/grading content
Ongoing needs analysis
Grouping learners
Devising learning activities
Instructing learners
Monitoring/assessing progress
Course evaluation

1
-

Very
important

Extremely
important

3*

Initial needs analysis

A UNIVERSITY HQ (UHQ)
CURRICULUM TASKS

90

1
2

1
2
1

Somewhat
unimportant

RATING SCALE
4

Somewhat
important

1
1
2
1
2
3
1

Very
unimportant

1
1
-

Extremely
unimportant

*The numbers against the curriculum tasks and under the rating scale represent the number of respondents who chose the option.

KEY
A
B
C
D
E
F

33.
Indicate by giving a rating from 1 to 6 (1=most important) who is primarily responsible for carrying out the following
curriculum tasks:

1
2
3

Goal and objective setting


Selecting/grading content
Ongoing needs analysis
Grouping learners
Devising learning activities
Instructing learners
Monitoring/assessing progress
Course evaluation

4
2

Very
important

Extremely
important

1
1
3

Initial needs analysis

C DEAN
CURRICULUM TASKS

1
1
-

Goal and objective setting


Selecting/grading content
Ongoing needs analysis
Grouping learners
Devising learning activities
Instructing learners
Monitoring/assessing progress
Course evaluation

Very
important

Extremely
important

Initial needs analysis

B DIRECTOR
CURRICULUM TASKS

91

1
2
1
2
2
3
1

2
1
3
1
2
2
3
1

2
1
-

Somewhat
unimportant

RATING SCALE
3
4
Somewhat
important

1
3
2

Somewhat
unimportant

RATING SCALE
4

Somewhat
important

2
-

Very
unimportant

1
-

Very
unimportant

1
--

Extremely
unimportant

1
1
-

Extremely
unimportant

D HEAD OF DEPARTMENT
CURRICULUM TASKS

RATING SCALE
4

Extremely
important

Very
important

Somewhat
important

Somewhat
unimportant

Very
unimportant

Extremely
unimportant

Initial needs analysis

Goal and objective setting


Selecting/grading content
Ongoing needs analysis
Grouping learners
Devising learning activities
Instructing learners
Monitoring/assessing progress
Course evaluation

1
1
2
1
2
3

2
1
3
2

1
1
2

1
-

E TEACHER IN CHARGE OF THE


COURSE
CURRICULUM TASKS

1
-

RATING SCALE
1

Extremely
important

Very
important

Somewhat
important

Somewhat
unimportant

Very
unimportant

Extremely
unimportant

Initial needs analysis

Goal and objective setting


Selecting/grading content
Ongoing needs analysis
Grouping learners
Devising learning activities
Instructing learners
Monitoring/assessing progress
Course evaluation

3
5
4
5
6
6
3
1

1
1

1
1
1
1

92

1
1
1
2

F OUTSIDE CURRICULUM
SPECIALIST
CURRICULUM TASKS

RATING SCALE
1

Extremely
important

Very
important

Somewhat
important

Somewhat
unimportant

Very
unimportant

Extremely
unimportant

Initial needs analysis

Goal and objective setting


Selecting/grading content
Ongoing needs analysis
Grouping learners
Devising learning activities
Instructing learners
Monitoring/assessing progress
Course evaluation

1
1
-

1
-

1
1

1
1
3

93

34.
Indicate by giving a rating from 1 to 6 (1=most important) who, in your opinion, should be primarily responsible for
carrying out the following curriculum tasks
KEY
A
B
C
D
E
F

University Headquarters
Director
Dean
Head of Department
Teacher in charge of the course
Outside curriculum specialist

*The numbers against the curriculum tasks and under the rating scale represent the number of respondents who chose the option.

A UNIVERSITY HQ (UHQ)
CURRICULUM TASKS

RATING SCALE
4
5

Extremely
important

Very
important

Somewhat
important

Somewhat
unimportant

Very
unimportant

Extremely unimportant

Initial needs analysis

3*

Goal and objective setting


Selecting/grading content
Ongoing needs analysis
Grouping learners
Devising learning activities
Instructing learners
Monitoring/assessing progress
Course evaluation

2
2
1
-

1
-

1
1

1
2
1
3
1
3

94

1
1
3
2

B DIRECTOR
CURRICULUM TASKS

RATING SCALE
4
5

Extremely
important

Very
important

Somewhat
important

Somewhat
unimportant

Very
unimportant

Extremely unimportant

Initial needs analysis

Goal and objective setting


Selecting/grading content
Ongoing needs analysis
Grouping learners
Devising learning activities
Instructing learners
Monitoring/assessing progress
Course evaluation

1
-

1
2

1
1
1
1
3
1
1

1
1
1
1
3
1
-

1
1
1
1

C DEAN
CURRICULUM TASKS

RATING SCALE
4
5

Extremely
important

Very
important

Somewhat
important

Somewhat
unimportant

Very
unimportant

Extremely unimportant

Initial needs analysis

Goal and objective setting


Selecting/grading content
Ongoing needs analysis
Grouping learners
Devising learning activities
Instructing learners
Monitoring/assessing progress
Course evaluation

1
2

1
1
1
3
1

1
1
1
3
1

1
2
2
1
3
1
1

2
1
-

1
-

95

D HEAD OF DEPARTMENT
CURRICULUM TASKS

RATING SCALE
4
5

Extremely
important

Very
important

Somewhat
important

Somewhat
unimportant

Very
unimportant

Extremely unimportant

Initial needs analysis

Goal and objective setting


Selecting/grading content
Ongoing needs analysis
Grouping learners
Devising learning activities
Instructing learners
Monitoring/assessing progress
Course evaluation

1
1
2
1
1
1
4
1

1
1
2
2
3
1
4

2
2
2

--

1
-

E TEACHER IN CHARGE
OF THE COURSE
CURRICULUM TASKS

1
1
2

RATING SCALE
1

Extremely
important

Very
important

Somewhat
important

Somewhat
unimportant

Very
unimportant

Extremely unimportant

Initial needs analysis

Goal and objective setting


Selecting/grading content
Ongoing needs analysis
Grouping learners
Devising learning activities
Instructing learners
Monitoring/assessing progress
Course evaluation

1
4
3
5
5
5
2
3

2
2
1
-

-1
-

1
1
1
1

96

F OUTSIDE
CURRICULUM
SPECIALIST
CURRICULUM
TASKS

RATING SCALE
1

Extremely
important

Very
important

Somewhat
important

Somewhat
unimportant

Very
unimportant

Extremely unimportant

Initial needs analysis

Goal and objective


setting
Selecting/grading content
Ongoing needs analysis
Grouping learners
Devising learning
activities
Instructing learners
Monitoring/assessing
progress
Course evaluation

1
-

1
-

97

APPENDIX III-THE STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE


1.

Please indicate your gender

Percentage of Male/Female Respondents

100
80
60
40
20
0

2.

Male

Female

Check the box with the age group appropriate to you

All respondents were aged between 18-25

3.

Which programme/degree are you enrolled in?

Respondents Course of Study


MS IT
10%
BBA
20%

BIT
45%

BICSE
25%

98

4.

What kind of English language courses have you studied as part of your degree.

Courses Studied as Part of Degree


20%

5%

75%

35%

75%

5.

75%

Communication skills

English Language

Technical Communication

Business Communication

English Literature

Subject to be done in next semester

Are you learning English as a:


First language/Mother tongue
Second Language/Compulsory subject
Other (please specify)

All respondents had been learning English as a second language/compulsory subject.

6.
Have you ever filled out a needs analysis/assessment questionnaire asking about your needs
as learners before the start of your course?
None of the respondents had ever filled out a needs assessment questionnaire.

7.
If yes to 6, please give details of the course for which you filled out the questionnaire and briefly
describe some of the questions you were asked about your needs as learners. For e.g. In the
questionnaire, we were asked if we needed to learn more about writing reports than letter writing etc
Not applicable to any of the respondents

99

8.
Learner needs have to be analysed before the syllabus for a language course is decided.
Therefore, Needs analysis of learner needs and wants is a useful tool for making a language course
meaningful for learners.

Response to requirement of Needs Analysis for


Course Designing
Neutral
5%

Strongly Agree
35%

Agree
60%

9.

Are you asked to evaluate or provide feedback on the effectiveness of your language course?

Ever Asked to Fill a Feedback Form?

100
80
60
40
20
0
Yes

No

100

10.

If yes to 9, what form does it take?

Method of Feedback
100
80
60
40
20
0
Questionnaires

11.

Discussion

N/A

When does the feedback/evaluation take place?

For 20% of the respondents it was not applicable. 45 % indicated that such evaluation was conducted mid
course. 30 % indicated that such evaluation was conducted at the end of the course and 5% indicated that
the evaluation took place throughout

12.
Learner feedback/evaluation can be effective as it can lead to changes in the
developing/organizing of the course. For e.g. the syllabus may be expanded to include new item or
teaching methods modified to benefit the students etc:

Learner Feedback/Evaluation

Strongly Agree
25%

Agree
55%

Neutral
20%

101

13.

When should course evaluation be conducted?


Timing of Evaluation

Both Mid & End


10%
End Course
15%

Throughout
40%

Mid Course
35%

14.

Which form of evaluating the course would you prefer?


Method of FeedBack

Both
25%
Questionnaires
50%
Discussion
25%

15.

Providing feedback on the effectiveness of a course can be affected by the following


factors. * factors listed on next page
Factors Affecting Feedback

Option 3
Option 1 & 2 15%

Option 2 & 3
20%

5%
Option 1,2 & 3
10%
Option 2
25%

Option 1
25%

102

*FACTORS
The consideration that the course grade has still not
been finalized and your feedback may affect the final
grading
The teacher is well liked even if the course is not
particularly well taught or well organized
The course is well designed and well taught but the
teacher is disliked by the class

103

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen