Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Volume 13. Number 4 December 2022 Pp.486-502
The Death of the English Language Classroom: Pedagogical Perspectives
Iman El-Nabawi Abdel Wahed Shaalan
Department of English, College of Science and Humanities
Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Corresponding Author: email@example.com
Colleges of Humanities
Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt
Received:09/26/2022 Accepted:11/30/2022 Published:12/16/2022
The present study aims to explore the importance of the various pedagogical practices in the teaching/ learning process. The study also probes the obstacles to applying these practices in an English language classroom, and sheds light on the future expectations of the teaching/ learning process in light of them. The main question this study seeks to answer is: “What are the obstacles in the application of the various pedagogical practices of the teaching/ learning process?” The study employs a mixed-method approach based on qualitative and quantitative research methodology. Semi-structured interviews, followed by a close-end questionnaire, are introduced to some 20 female instructors of English in the department of English, at Sattam bin Abdulaziz University, Saudi Arabia. Instructors are asked about their awareness of the various pedagogical practices of the teaching/ learning process, and the extent to which they apply them in the English language classroom. They are also asked about the students’ actual learning outcomes and future expectations in light of these practices. Results of the study showed dissatisfaction by the instructors due to discrepancies between the theoretical and actual learning outcomes. Results also showed dissatisfaction by the instructors due to the inapplicability of some pedagogical practices for various reasons and obstacles.
Keywords: Assessment and teaching methods, curriculum design and development, learning outcomes,
learning objectives, teaching and learning styles, the syllabus
Cite as: Shaalan, I. E. A. (2022). The Death of the English Language Classroom: Pedagogical Perspectives.
Arab World English Journal, 13 (4) 486-502.
Akkus, R., Gunel, M., & Hand, B. (2007). Comparing an inquiry‐based approach known as the science writing heuristic to traditional science teaching practices: Are there differences? International Journal of Science Education, 29(14), 1745-1765.
Anghelache, V. (2013). Determinant factors of students’ attitudes toward learning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93, 478-482.
Avargil, S., Herscovitz, O., & Dori, Y. J. (2013). Challenges in the transition to large-scale reform in chemical education. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 10, 189-207.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2013.07.008
Bartholomew, S., Loveland, T., & Santana, V. (2020). Writing standards-based lesson plans to Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy. Available at
Banegas, D. L. (2022). Four spheres of student-teachers’ professional identity formation through learning about curriculum development. Journal of Education for Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2022.2105644.(pp.7-9)
Briggs, J.L. (1997). Instructions design; Principle and Application. New York; Educational Technology Publications. Inc.(p. 45)
Byars-Winston, A., Estrada, Y., Howard, C., Davis, D., & Zalapa, J. (2010). Influence of social cognitive and ethnic variables on academic goals of underrepresented students in science and engineering: a multiple-groups analysis. Journal of counseling psychology, 57(2), 205.
Carl, A. (2009). Teacher empowerment through curriculum development theory into practice. Juta & Company Ltd.
Costa, A.L., & Liebman, R.M. (Eds.). (1997). The process-centered school: Sustaining a renaissance community. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, (p.23)
Demirkan, O., & Saracoglu (2016). Views of Anatolian high school teachers about teaching methods and techniques they use in class. The Journal of International Lingual, Social and Educational Sciences, 2(1), 1-11
Dou, R., Teodorescu, R., Madsen, A., Redish, E. F., & Reeves, M. (2019). Examining course syllabi: Introductory physics for life sciences. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 15(2), 020143.
Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Gross, R. (2010). Psychology: The Science of Mind and Behaviour 6thE. Hachette UK.
Harden, R. M. (2001). AMEE Guide No. 21: Curriculum mapping: a tool for transparent and authentic teaching and learning. Medical teacher, 23(2), 123-137.
Handler, B. (2010). Teacher as curriculum leader: A consideration of the appropriateness of that role assignment to classroom-based practitioners. International Journal of Teacher Leadership, 3, 32-42
Hewitt, T. W. (2006). Understanding and shaping curriculum: What we teach and why. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Holz-Clause, M., Guntuku, D., Koundinya, V., Clause, R., & Singh, K. (2015). Current and Future Trends in Higher Education Learning: Implications for Curriculum Design and Delivery: Ololube, N., Kpolovie, P., & Makewa, L. Handbook of Research on Enhancing Teacher Education with Advanced Instructional Technologies (pp.277-292). IGI Global
James, A. B. (2020). A noteworthy next class: Making learning objectives work for you. Communications in Information Literacy, 14(2), 11.
Loveless, B. (2018). Developing a Student-centered Classroom-Education Corner. Education Corner- Education that matters, 1-6
Lunenberg, F., & Ornstein, A. C. (2008). Educational administration: Concepts and practices (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Malik, R.S., & Hamied, F.A. (2016). Research Methods: a guide for the first time research. Bandung: UPI Press
Marchis, I. (2011). Factors that influence secondary school students’ attitude to mathematics. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 786-793.
Mitchell, K. M., & Manzo, W. R. (2018). The purpose and perception of learning objectives. Journal of Political Science Education, 14(4), 456-472.
Mohanasundaram, K. (2018). Curriculum design and development. Journal of applied and advanced research, 3(1), 4-6.
Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (2012). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Polkinghorne, D. E. (1989). Phenomenological research methods. In Valle, R.S., & S. Halling, (eds), Existential-phenomenological perspectives in psychology (pp. 41-60). Springer, Boston, MA.
Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. Cambridge university press.
Sangster, A. (1996). Objective tests, learning to learn and learning styles. Accounting Education, 5(2), 131-146.
Schwerdt, G., & Wuppermann, A. C. (2011). Is traditional teaching really all that bad? A within-student between-subject approach. Economics of Education Review, 30(2), 365-379.
Smith, M. K. ( 1996). Curriculum theory and practice’ the encyclopedia of pedagogy and informal education. Available at www.infed.org/biblio/b-curric.htm
Stollman, S., Meirink, J., Westenberg, M., & Van Driel, J. (2020). Teachers’ learning and sense- making processes in the context of innovation: A two year follow-up study. Professional Development in Education, 1-16. doi:10.1080/19415257.2020.1744683
Wheeler, L. B., Palmer, M., & Aneece, I. (2019). Students’ Perceptions of Course Syllabi: The Role of Syllabi in Motivating Students. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 13(3), 1-10
Young, J. H. (1988). Teacher participation in curriculum development: What status does it have? Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 3(2), 109-110.