A CIPP Approach to Evaluation of Grammar Teaching Program at a High school in Iran

Mojdeh Ebrahimi Dehkordi, Mohammad Reza Talebinezhad


This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of high school grammar program through the perspectives of instructors and students. To this end, The CIPP (context, input, process, and product) evaluation model developed by Stufflebeam (1971) was utilized. 120 students attending the second grade high school in the 1393-1394 educational year. 10 instructors teaching in the program participated in the study. The data were gathered through a self-reported student questionnaire. An interview which was designed for the instructors. While the data based on the questionnaire were analyzed through descriptive and inferential statistics, content analysis was carried out to analyze qualitative data. Results of the study indicated that the grammar program at a high school served for its purpose. The finding revealed that some improvement in the objectives, teaching methods and grammar curriculum effects on oral productive skill, were required to make the grammar program more effective.


curriculum evaluation, grammar teaching, high school

Full Text:



Airasian, P. W., & Walsh, M. E. (1997). Cautions for classroom constructivists Education Digest, 62 (8), 62-69. Retrieved September 26, 2009, from EBSCOHOST database.

Akar, H. (2009). Foreign language teacher education: The Polish case. The New Educational Review, 17(1), 185-211.

Ankara University. (2009). School of foreign languages, Retrieved September 10, 2009, from http://www.yabdil.ankara.edu.tr.

Atai, M.R., & Mazlum, F. (2013). English language teaching curriculum in Iran: Planning and practice. The Curriculum Journal, 24(3), 389-411

Baker, C. (1988). Key issues in bilingualism and bilingual education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Best, J.W., & Kahn, J.V. (2003). Research in education (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education Company.

Birjandi, P., Soheili, A. Norouzi, M., & Mahmoodi, G. (1994). English Book 1. Tehran: Iran's School Book Publishers

Birkmaier, E. M. (1973). Research on teaching foreign languages. Chicago: Rand- McNally.

Bobbitt, F. (1923). The curriculum. New York: Macmillan.

Bowman, B. (1989). Teaching English as a foreign or second language. Washington DC: Peace Corps.

Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (second edition). New York: Longman.

Cabatoff, K. (1996). Getting on and off the policy agenda: A dualistic theory of program evaluation utilization. The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 11(2), 35-60.

Carroll, J.B. (1962). The prediction of sources in intensive foreign language training. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Cooper, R.L. (1989). Language planning and social change. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Dahmardeh, M. (2009). Communicative textbooks: English Language textbooks in Iranian secondary school. Linguistik Online, 40(4), 45-61

Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration and processing. Manwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Ediger, M. (2006). Organizing the curriculum. New Delhi: Discovery Publishing House.

Erdem, H. E. (1999). Evaluating the English language curriculum at a private school in Ankara: A case study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Middle East Technical University, Ankara.

Erdoğan, V. (2005). An evaluation of the English curriculum implemented at the 4th and 5th grade primary state schools: The views of the teachers and the students. Unpublished master’s thesis, Mersin University, Mersin.

Field, A. P. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

Fitz-Gibbon, C.T., & Morris, L.L. (1987). How to design a program evaluation. LA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Flowerdew, J., & Peacock, M. (2001). (Eds.). Research perspectives on English for academic purposes, Cambridge: CUP.

Fraenkel, R., & Wallen, N. E. (1990). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Frechtling, J. A. (2007). Logic modeling methods in program evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gagné, R. (1987). Curriculum research and the promotion of learning: Perspectives of curriculum evaluation. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Gerede, D. (2005). A curriculum evaluation through needs analysis: Perceptions of intensive English program graduates at Anadolu University. Unpublished master’s thesis, Anadolu University, Eskisehir.

Ghorbani, M.R. (2009). ELT in Iranian high schools in Iran, Malaysia and Japan. Reflections on English Language Teaching, 8(2), 131-139

Gredler, M. E. (1996). Program evaluation. NJ: Prentice Hall

Grittner, F.M. (1969). Teaching foreign languages. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers.

Henson, K. T. (2006). Curriculum planning integrating multiculturalism, constructivism and education reform. Boston: Mcgraw Hill.

Jawarska, E. and Porte, G. (2007). Forty years of language teaching. London: Cambridge University Press.

Khedir Sharabian, Sh., Kheierabadi, R., Alavi Moghaddam, S. Behnam, Anani Sarab, M. R., Forouzandeh Shahraki, E., & Ghorbani, N. (2013). English for Schools: Prospect 1. Tehran: Iran's School Book Publishers.

Kelly, A.V. (1999). The curriculum: Theory and practice. London: Paul Chapman.

Lawes, S. (2000). Why learn a foreign language. In Field, Kit. (Ed.). Issues in foreign language teaching. (pp. 41-55). London: Rutledge/Falmer.

Lynch, B.K. (1996). Language program evaluation: Theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Meshkat, M., & Saeb, F. (2013). High school students' beliefs about language learning. ROSHD ELT, 28(1), 50-55.

Morris, L. L., & Fitz-Gibbon, C. T (1978). Evaluator’s handbook. California: Sage.

Olivia, F. P. (2001). Developing the curriculum. New York: Longman

Ornstein, Allan C., & Hunkins Francis P. (2004).Curriculum: Foundations, principles and issues. Englawood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall.

Payne, A. (1994). Designing educational project and program evaluations. London: Norwell.

Pekiner, G. (2006). Evaluation of the science and technology curriculum at grade level 4 and 5: Pilot study. Unpublished master’s thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara.

Pryor, J., & Torrance, H. (1996) Teacher-pupil interaction in formative assessment: assessing the work or protecting the child. The Curriculum Journal, 7.

Rossi, P. H., & Freeman, H. E. (1999). Evaluation. California: Sage.

Saylor, G. J. Alexander, W. M., Lewis, A. J. (1981). Curriculum planning for better teaching and learning, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Stufflebeam, D. L. (1983). The CIPP model for program evaluation. Boston: Kluwer- Nijhoff.

Stufflebeam, D. L., & Shinkfield, A. J. (1985). Systematic evaluation. Boston: Kluwe-Nijhoff.

Stufflebeam, D.L. (2000). The CIPP model for evaluation. In T.Kellaghan and D.L Stufflebeam (Eds). International handbook of educational evaluation, Part 1 (pp.31-62). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum: Theory and practice. New York: Harcourt, Brace.

Talmage, H. (1982). Evaluation of programs. New York: Free Press.

Tanner, D., & Tanner, L. N. (1980) Curriculum development: Theory into practice. New York: Macmillan.

Thompson, G. (1996). Some misconceptions about communicative language teaching. ELT Journal, 50(1), 9-15.

Tyler, R.W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Weir, C., & Roberts, J. (1994), Evaluation in ELT. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Weston, C., McAlpine, L., & Bordonaro, T. (1995). A model for understanding formative evaluation in instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(3), 29-46.

Wiles, J., & Bondi, J (1985). Curriculum development: A guide to practice (7th ed.), Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Worthen R., & Sanders, R. (1998). Educational evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines. New York: Longman.

Yanık, A. (2007). A study of English language curriculum implementation in 6th, 7th and 8th grades of public primary schools through teachers’ and students’ perceptions. Unpublished master’s thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2018 Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research