Abstract

This study applies Jacques Derrida’s (1976) deconstructive framework to examine the traditional supervision model at the Iran Language Institute (ILI), a leading EFL institution in Iran with 290 branches serving 1.2 million students annually. Through a qualitative case study employing Critical Discourse Analysis, it investigates how binary oppositions—supervisor/teacher, expert/novice, evaluation/development—and aporias, such as standardization versus individuality and professional growth versus punitive evaluation, sustain hierarchical power dynamics that constrain teacher agency and pedagogical innovation.
Data from semi-structured interviews, classroom and feedback session observations, ILI policy documents, and teachers’ reflective journals reveal that unannounced observations and rigid rubrics prioritize compliance over creativity. This approach fosters teacher anxiety, performative teaching, and punitive outcomes, such as demotion to lower-level classes. Key contradictions include: (1) ILI’s mission of quality education versus evaluative supervision; (2) standardized methodologies versus diverse classroom needs; and (3) professional growth goals versus punitive evaluations.
To address these issues, the study proposes three reforms: dialogic feedback to foster reciprocal dialogue, co-constructed evaluation criteria incorporating teachers’ contextual expertise, and Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) to promote peer-driven learning. By addressing a gap in Middle Eastern EFL supervision research, this study advances theoretical discourse on power dynamics in supervision and offers practical strategies for equitable, teacher-centered practices at ILI, with implications for global EFL contexts seeking transformative supervisory frameworks.