This study aims at theorizing language teachers’ evaluation of a top-down curriculum change by eliciting their perspectives through open-ended qualitative interviews. In line with grounded theory procedures, concepts and categories were theoretically sampled from the perspective of participants who were willing to share their views with the researcher. Iterative data collection and analysis revealed a set of categories which show the conflict of interest between practitioners and policy-makers. Practitioners focus on immediate classroom concerns and reject the syllabus change because of its lack of small-scale try-outs, inappropriate timing, vague methodology, inappropriate in-service program, learner homogeneity fallacy, unrealistic expectations and increased absenteeism among learners. On the other hand, focusing on issues beyond immediate classroom, policy makers advocate it since it is conducive to uniformity, convergent practice, efficiency and covert privatization. This conceptualization of teachers’ perspectives on curriculum change has clear implications for policy makers and teachers in this context and other similar contexts.
Unwarranted Change, Syllabus, Teachers’ Perceptions, Grounded Theory
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 License.
Recommended APA Citation
Ostovar-Namaghi, S. A. (2017). Language Teachers’ Evaluation of Curriculum Change: A Qualitative Study. The Qualitative Report, 22(2), 391-409. Retrieved from http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol22/iss2/3