Academic English Program Evaluation of the Foundation Year at Saudi Petroleum Services Polytechnic College: Trainees and EFL Instructors’ Perceptions

Waleed Mahmoud Hamdoun


The main reason of conducting this study is grounded on my rational to provide further guidance to curriculum staff in my professional context, College of Saudi Petroleum Services Polytechnic (SPSP), to develop the current English program taught to vocational trainees to prepare them to their future jobs at petroleum services industry in Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately, the graduates’ spoken language is inadequate at their worksites and therefore their employers are relatively dissatisfied with the language quality of their manpower. Accordingly, I have decided to explore the speaking skill aspects in the existing English curriculum to value its effectiveness in improving and helping the academic staff to produce fluent speakers of English at oil industry workplaces. Based on my study findings, I have found that it is relatively difficult to assign a language course book which meets all the needs of trainees at vocational training institutions because their working environment needs specific learning objectives for learning job-related language. In my research and professional experience, as a researcher in language curriculum development as well as being a language instructor at a vocational training college, I can conclude that the solution to solve language learning and its implication at workplace is to develop EAP/ESP language program based on specific instructional objectives driven from the actual needs assessment at the target workplaces and their intended learning outcomes could be aligned with both learning and teaching activities and assessment tasks using the constructive alignment principles as the constructive alignment framework could be effective in structuring and designing aligned curriculum to meet the intended goals of these contexts, especially vocational training centers and higher education institutions.


Curriculum Development, Program Evaluation, Constructive Alignment, Systems Approach

Full Text:



Bazeley, P. (2013). Qualitative Data Analysis: Practical Strategies. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Biggs, J. & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the student Does (3rd ed.). New York: Open University Press.

Biggs, J. & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the student Does (4th ed.). New York: Open University Press.

Blair, L. (2016). Teaching Writing Series: Writing a Graduate Thesis or Dissertation. Canada: Concordia University.

Brown, J. (1995). The Elements of Language Curriculum: A Systematic Approach to Program Development. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.

Brown, J. (1996). Testing in Language Programs. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Brown, J. (2014). Mixed Methods Research for TESOL. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Creswell, J. (2016). 30 Essential Skills for the Qualitative Researcher. California: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Creswell, J. & Clark, V. (2014). Understanding Research: A consumer’s Guide. New Jersey: Pearson Education.

Dames, G. (2012). Enhancing of teaching and learning through constructive alignment. Acta Theologica, 2,35-53.

Dornyei, Z. & Taguchi, T. (2010). Questionnaires in Second Language Research: Construction, Administration, and Processing. New York: Routledge.

Field, A. (2009). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS: (and sex and drugs and rock ‘n’ roll). London: SAGE Publications.

Heigham, J. & Croker, R. (Eds.). (2009). Qualitative Research in Applied Linguistics:A Practical Introduction. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kabouha, R. (2015). Aligning Teaching and Assessment to Course Objectives: The Case of Preparatory Year English Program at King Abdulaziz University. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 4(5), 82-91.

Kuckartz, U. (2014). Qualitative text analysis: A guide to Methods, Practice & Using Software. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Mackenzie, N. & Knipe, S. (2006). Research dilemmas: paradigms, methods and methodology. Issues in Educational Research, 16(2), 193-205.

McKernan, J. (2007). Curriculum and Imagination: Process theory, pedagogy and action research. New York: Routledge.

Mitroff, I., Hill, L. & Alpaslan, C. (2013). Rethinking the Education Reform: A systems Approach to Education Reform. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Nation, I. & Macalister, J. (2010). Language Curriculum Design. New York: Routledge.

Nunan, D. (1988). The Learner-Centered Curriculum: A study in second language teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Shuell, T. J. (1986). Cognitive Conceptions of Learning. Review of Educational Research, 56, 411-436.

Teddlie, C. & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of Mixed Methods Research: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. California: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Thijis, A. & Akker, J. (Eds.). (2009). Curriculum in development: SLO. Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development. Netherlands: SLO.

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

White, E. (2012). Are You Assessment Literate? Some Fundamental Questions Regarding Effective Classroom-based Assessment. OnCUE Journal, 3(1), 3-25.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2012-2022 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD

International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature

To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the journal emails into your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.