Investigating English Language Policies in Saudi Higher Education English Departments: Staff Members' Beliefs

Abstract

The area of language policy and planning in educational settings has been attracting increasing attention in recent years. This study reports on an investigation into the beliefs of Saudi Arabian higher education department members concerning English Language Policies (henceforth ELPs). The focus was on their beliefs about ELPs outside the domain of the classroom and at department level. In these departments, English is normally used in a variety of department communication situations. The subject of how ELPs should be shaped and practised from staff members' perspectives has not yet been addressed in the literature. A mixed-method approach to data collection was adopted for this study. A total of 216 members of English departments from different regions (northern, southern, middle, western and eastern regions) and of different ranks (teaching assistants, lecturers, assistant professors, associate professors and full professors), specialities and genders participated in the study. An online survey comprising a background section and eight questions was provided, and 208 participants responded to it. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with seven male chairmen and one female vice chair. The findings of the study suggest that members of English departments have strong beliefs about ELPs and that they perceive such policies to be important and would therefore prefer them to be made explicit and official. It was also found that members favour a systematic department policy making process rather than adopting already designed policies from other parties (in other words, they prefer micro-level processing of ELPs). The implications of the findings for other departments and institutions are presented in this paper, as well as the limitations of the current study and recommendations for future research.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 6 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.