Document Type : Research Paper


University of Isfahan


There is a growing interest among the higher education principals and policy makers to improve teacher evaluation methods and more important than that to use the evaluation data. A number of research studies implied the ineffective instruction of ESP courses in Iran (Atai, 2002; Eslami, 2005; Hayati, 2008; Ahmadi, 2008; Sherkatolabbasi & Mahdavi, 2012; Boniadi, Ghojazadeh & Rahmatvand, 2013). The basic objective of research in field of ESP/EGP instruction and evaluation is to facilitate informed decisions for the betterment of English classes. The literature suggested that most of the teachers and students were dissatisfied with the students’ progress in specific English courses. Data was collected from the teachers by various ways including observation checklist and feedback form. To carry out the study, 12 ESP and EGP teachers were observed using Marshall’s rubrics (2011) and observation logs’ analysis. Then, 18 teachers offered feedback on different aspects of their own courses. The data were analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively using ANOVA statistical measurement. The findings firstly indicate that EGP teachers were more standard teachers in comparison to ESP teachers. Secondly, the feedback forms show discrepancy between the views of EGP teachers and ESP teachers in some areas including the material effectiveness and students’ interest. To reach a standard point in EGP/ESP instruction, more evaluation is to be applied by the faculty members, university principals and the teachers themselves. Politically correct attitudes towards teachers should not lead to ineffective English courses. Some practical implications are suggested to upgrade the current practice in ESP classes.


Ahmadi, M. (2008). Who should teach ESP? Retrieved from
Alderson, J.C, & A. Bretta. (1992). Evaluating second language education. Glassgow: Cambridge University Press.
Anthony, L. (1998). Defining English for specific purposes and the role of the ESP practitioner. Center for Language Research 1997 Annual Review, pp. 115-120.
Atai, M. R. (2002). EAP teacher education: Searching for an effective model integrating content and language teachers' scheme. Islamic Azad University, Qazvin branch, Qazvin, Iran.
Benoussan, M. (1998).Schema effects in EFL reading comprehension.Journal of Research in Reading, 21, 213-227.
Boniadi, A., Ghojazadeh, M., &Rahmatvand, N. (2013). Problems of English for Specific Purpose course for medical students in Iran. Khazar Journal of Humanities & Social Sciences, 16 (1), 48.
DehghanHarati, R. (2012). Personal observation of three ESP classes.The Iranian EFL Journal, 8(1), 318-333.
Dudley-Evans, T., & St John, M.J. (1991).Developments in English for Specific Purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Eslami, R. A. (2005). A no man’s land area of activity: Investigating ESP courses administered in Iranian Universities. Proceedings of the First National ESP/EAP Conference. The center for Research and Development in Humanities of SAMT, Tehran, Iran.
Eslami, Z. R. (2010). Teachers' voice vs. students' voice: A needs analysis approach of English for academic purposes (EAP) in Iran. English Language Teaching, 3(1), 3-12
Flowerdew, L. (2013). Needs Analysis and Curriculum Development in ESP. In Paltridge, B. and Starfield, S. (Eds.). (2013). The Handbook of English for Specific Purposes (1 ed. Vol. 1): John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Gallagher, T. J. (2000). Embracing Student Evaluations of Teaching: A Case Study.Teaching Sociology, 28, 140-147.
Hayati, M. (2008).Teaching English for special purposes in Iran: Problems and suggestions. Arts & Humanities in Higher Education, 7(2), 149-164
Hill, G., Guest, M., & Skier, E. M. (2010). Panel discussion redux: What are the roles of teachers in ESP/EAP courses? OnCUE Journal. 4(2), 154-166.   
Hutchison, T., & Waters, A. (1993).English for Specific Purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, K. (2006). English for academic purposes: An advanced resource book. London: Routledge.
Jordan, R. R. (1989). English for academic purposes (EAP).Language Teaching, 22 (3), 150–64.
Lewis, J. M. & Benson, D. E. (1998).“Section Eight. Course Evaluations.” pp. 99-114 in Tips for Teaching Introductory Sociology, edited by Jerry M. Lewis. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Liu, J., Chang Y., Yang, F., & Sun Y. (2011).Is what I need what I want? Reconceptualizing college students' needs in English courses for general and specific/academic purposes.Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10, 271-280.
Macer, D. (2006).A cross-cultural introduction to bioethics. Christchurch, N.Z.: EubiosEhticsInstitute.p. 11.
Marshall, K. (2009). Rethinking teacher supervision and evaluation: how to work smart, build collaboration, and close the achievement gap. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Marshall, K. (2011). Teacher evaluation rubrics. Retrieved November 1, 2011, Retrieved from from
Paltridge, B. &Starfield, S. (Eds.). (2013). The Handbook of English for Specific Purposes: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Peterson, K. (2000). Teacher evaluation: A comprehensive guide to new directions and practices (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED445087)
Peterson, P., &Kauchak, D. (1982). Teacher evaluation: Perspectives, practices and promises. Salt Lake City: Center for Educational Practice, University of Utah.
Rajabi, P.,Kiany, G. R., &Maftoon, P. (2011) Iranian English Major vs. Subject-matter ESP Teachers’ Beliefs and Instructional Practices in ESP Classes: A Comparative Study. In: 1st International Conference on Foreign Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics (FLTAL’11), 5-7 May 2011, Sarajevo.
Robinson, P. C. (1980). ESP (English for Specific Purposes): the present position. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Robinson, P. C. (1991). ESP Today: A practitioner's guide. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition, Theoretical issues in reading comprehension. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, Lawrence Associates. 
Sanders, W. (1999). Teachers! Teachers! Teachers! Blueprint Magazine, Online edition.Retrieved March 28, 2012, from blueprint/fall/2012/solutions4.html.
Sherkatolabbasi, M., &Mahdavi, A. (2012).Evaluation of ESP Teachers in Different Contexts of Iranian Universities.International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 1(2), 198-205.
Wenglinsky, H. (2000). How teaching matters: Bringing the classroom back into discussions of teacher quality. Princeton, NJ: The Milken Family Foundation and Educational Testing Service.