Abstract
This study aims to examine and evaluate the educational logic governing the sequence and prerequisite relationships among courses on poetic and prose texts in the undergraduate curriculum of Persian Language and Literature. This qualitative study was conducted using a documentary-library method with a descriptive-analytical approach. Accordingly, all compulsory and elective courses on poetic and prose texts were examined, with 12 identified for critical review. The information about the courses was collected based on the tables and detailed sections of the curriculum. The findings show that, in some cases, the sequence and prerequisite relationships of poetic and prose courses follow a general and number-based pattern and are associated with several shortcomings. The most important of these are as follows: in some cases, the order in which the courses are offered is not consistent with the historical and developmental sequence of the texts. In some cases, the knowledge and skills gained from the prerequisite course do not provide an appropriate basis for entering the main course. In a number of cases, the assigned prerequisite is not consistent with the content, genre, and literary style of the main course, and sometimes the level of difficulty of the prerequisite course is not appropriate in relation to the main course. This article highlights the need for a systematic review of the curriculum, identifies its shortcomings based on the academic and educational requirements of Persian Language and Literature and the principles of curriculum development, and offers constructive suggestions for its improvement.

Introduction
Higher education institutions serve as one of the most important conduits for the transmission and organization of knowledge in any society, and the curriculum functions as the principal instrument through which academic programs achieve their educational objectives. The quality of a curriculum is widely recognized as a decisive determinant of the overall success of an educational system. In the Iranian higher education system, university curricula are developed and approved centrally through the Council for Planning Higher Education, with the aim of harmonizing similar academic programs across universities, ensuring structural coherence, and guaranteeing minimum scientific standards. The curriculum for the Bachelor's degree in Persian Language and Literature, approved in 2012, explicitly emphasizes conformity with the principles and indicators of curriculum planning, the currency of content, the proportionality and coherence of program components, and alignment with strategic documents. However, close examination of the structure and components of this program reveals that these stated objectives have not been fully realized in the sequencing and prerequisite relationships of a number of courses in prose and poetry texts (mutūn-i naẓm va nathr), rendering the program in need of revision.
Periodic review of curricula provides not only a basis for identifying and remedying structural deficiencies but also an instrument for assessing their operational efficiency. Many curricula that appear convincing and effective at the level of theoretical design encounter unforeseen challenges in implementation and lose their expected effectiveness. Continuous evaluation of the curriculum is therefore indispensable for revealing the gap between intention and practice. Higher education systems emphasize the importance of curriculum evaluation to the extent that it is often regarded as the guarantor of the survival of universities, since evaluation is the basis of transformation and change. In the contemporary era, change for higher education and its institutions is not an opportunity but a necessity.
The curriculum of the Bachelor's program in Persian Language and Literature, as the framework for organizing the educational process in this discipline, determines not only the content and objectives of courses but also the sequence and relationships among course units. The effectiveness of the program thus depends not merely on the appropriate selection of texts and topics but on the degree of compatibility among course units and the appropriateness of prerequisite relationships. Accordingly, assessing and evaluating the logic governing course sequencing and the determination of prerequisite relationships in prose and poetry texts is of particular importance for demonstrating the internal coherence and effectiveness of this component of the curriculum. The central problem of the present research is the examination and critique of the sequencing of courses and prerequisite relationships in prose and poetry texts in the Bachelor's curriculum in Persian Language and Literature, based on the scientific-educational requirements of this discipline and the principles of curriculum planning articulated in the theoretical framework of the study. The research seeks to answer two questions: First, to what extent are the sequencing and prerequisite relationships of prose and poetry texts in the Bachelor's curriculum in Persian Language and Literature consistent with the educational requirements of this discipline and the criteria of curriculum planning? Second, what are the most important inconsistencies in the sequencing and prerequisite relationships of prose and poetry texts, based on the criteria articulated in this article?

Research Methodology
The present research is qualitative in nature, and in terms of data collection method, it is documentary-library research conducted with a descriptive-analytical approach. The primary source of research data is the detailed section and tables of the Bachelor's curriculum in Persian Language and Literature, approved by the Council for Planning Higher Education on 24 June 2012. In formulating the theoretical framework of the research, attention has been given to the scientific-educational requirements of courses in the Persian Language and Literature discipline as well as sources related to the principles of curriculum planning.
The process of data analysis was conducted in two stages. First, the sequencing and prerequisite relationships of prose and poetry texts were extracted from the approved curriculum. Second, the cases requiring examination were evaluated based on the theoretical framework and criteria articulated in the article. From among all the course units in prose and poetry texts in the compulsory and elective sections, twelve units were identified as requiring critique. The information related to the course units was obtained by relying on the tables and the detailed section of the program. The evaluation framework draws upon the views of curriculum theorists such as Tyler, Biggs, and Reigeluth, as well as the specialized considerations of the Persian Language and Literature discipline, namely "observance of the historical and developmental precedence of texts" and "proportionality among the content, genre, and literary style of texts." The study emphasizes that the observance of historical precedence should not be treated as an absolute criterion independent of other educational requirements; rather, where strict adherence to historical precedence conflicts with other principles and foundations of educational planning, it may be set aside in favor of more appropriate educational sequencing.

Discussion
The General Pattern of Prerequisite Relationships: A Number-Based Logic
The analysis reveals that the determination of prerequisite relationships in prose and poetry texts follows a general, number-based pattern. According to this pattern, the last unit in a set of preceding text courses is designated as the prerequisite for all units in the subsequent set, without precise determination of the prerequisite relationship among successive course units. For example, "Poetry Texts (4)" is the prerequisite for "Poetry Texts (5)," and "Poetry Texts (3)" is the prerequisite for "Poetry Texts (4)." In such a structure, since each of these titles encompasses several course units, the last unit among the preceding text units is placed as the prerequisite for all subsequent units. One of the consequences of following this linear, number-based pattern is the neglect of coherence, content proportionality, and the generic affinity of literary texts—an issue that is examined in detail in the specific cases below.
Case One: The Prerequisite for Nāṣir Khusraw's Qaṣīdas
In the approved curriculum, the prerequisite for the course "Qaṣīdas of Nāṣir Khusraw" is "Poetry Texts (1): Pioneers of Persian Poetry." However, between the "Pioneers of Persian Poetry" of the first half of the fourth century and the poetry of Nāṣir Khusraw in the late fifth century, there is a considerable temporal gap. Between these two courses, there exists an intermediate historical-educational link under the title "Poets of the Khurāsān Literary Sphere," which has been neglected in the current program. The direct transition from the earliest experiences of Persian poetry to the poetry of Nāṣir Khusraw, without familiarity with the intermediate stage of the evolution of this style, is questionable both from the perspective of the historical and developmental trajectory of the Khurāsānī style and from the standpoint of educational principles. The course "Poets of the Khurāsān Literary Sphere," which includes the principal poets of this sphere in a period closer to the age of Nāṣir Khusraw, can introduce students to the linguistic, rhetorical, and stylistic features of these poets and prepare them to encounter the culmination of the Khurāsānī style in Nāṣir Khusraw's qaṣīdas. This choice is also noteworthy in terms of educational planning principles, since according to the principles of "continuity, sequence, and integration," which emphasize the building of later learning upon earlier experiences, as well as the "learning prerequisite sequence," it provides the student with the preliminary knowledge and experience for familiarity with Nāṣir Khusraw's poetry. It is therefore proposed that "Poets of the Khurāsān Literary Sphere" be substituted for "Pioneers of Persian Poetry" as the prerequisite for "Qaṣīdas of Nāṣir Khusraw."
Case Two: The Prerequisite for the Poets of the Khurāsān Literary Sphere
In the curriculum, the prerequisite for "Poetry Texts (3), Part One: Poets of the Khurāsān Literary Sphere" is designated as "Poetry Texts (2)." Since "Poetry Texts (2)" is a general title encompassing three units—"Shāhnāmeh 1," "Shāhnāmeh 2," and "Qaṣīdas of Nāṣir Khusraw"—it is expected that the curriculum specify which of these three units should serve as the prerequisite for "Poets of the Khurāsān Literary Sphere." However, both in the relevant table and in the detailed section of the curriculum, the prerequisite is stated simply as "Poetry Texts (2)" without specifying a particular unit. Following the same number-based pattern, "Qaṣīdas of Nāṣīr Khusraw" (as the last unit of "Poetry Texts (2)") is the prerequisite for "Poets of the Khurāsān Literary Sphere." Although Nāṣir Khusraw's qaṣīdas and the works of the poets of the Khurāsān literary sphere are classified under the Khurāsānī style, the literary life and the period of the composition of Nāṣir Khusraw's qaṣīdas postdate most of the poets whose poetry is studied in the "Poets of the Khurāsān Literary Sphere" unit. Making "Qaṣīdas of Nāṣīr Khusraw" a prerequisite for the aforementioned unit forces the student into a reverse movement in the history of literature, whereas according to the principle of observing historical precedence and the developmental course of Persian poetry, familiarity with the earlier stages of stylistic evolution should precede encounter with its later stages. If "Pioneers of Persian Poetry" were considered the prerequisite for "Poets of the Khurāsān Literary Sphere" instead of "Qaṣīdas of Nāṣīr Khusraw," greater proportionality would be established between these two units in terms of historical and developmental sequence as well as content and stylistic coherence.
Case Three: The Prerequisites for Niẓāmī and Khāqānī
For the units "Poetry Texts (3), Part Three: Niẓāmī" and "Poetry Texts (3), Part Four: Khāqānī," the prerequisite is designated as "Poetry Texts (2)," which, according to the pattern explained above, is "Qaṣīdas of Nāṣir Khusraw." Nāṣir Khusraw's poetic style and intellectual foundations belong to the Khurāsānī style. This style is not proportionate to the poetic style of Niẓāmī's masnavīs (Makhzan al-Asrār, Laylī va Majnūn, Khusraw va Shīrīn) and Khāqānī's technical qaṣīdas, both of which exhibit features of the ʿIrāqī style. Given the linguistic and rhetorical complexities of the works of Niẓāmī and Khāqānī, who are counted among the peaks of the ʿIrāqī style, educational logic dictates that the student should first become familiar with poets whose poetry stands at the boundary between the Khurāsānī and ʿIrāqī styles and whose poetry is simpler than that of Khāqānī and Niẓāmī, and then turn to the poetry of these two poets. The principle of "constructive alignment" indicates that the learning experiences gained from studying "Qaṣīdas of Nāṣir Khusraw" are not aligned, in terms of linguistic, content-related, rhetorical, and stylistic features, with the learning objectives of the "Niẓāmī and Khāqānī" units. In contrast, in the course "Poets of the ʿIrāqī Literary Sphere," the four poets whose poetry is examined (Anvarī, Jamāl al-Dīn Iṣfahānī, Ẓahīr Fāryābī, and Kamāl al-Dīn Iṣfahānī) are chronologically closer to the poetic era of Niẓāmī and Khāqānī than Nāṣir Khusraw, and their content and poetic style are more consistent with the poetry of these two poets. It therefore appears that substituting "Poets of the ʿIrāqī Literary Sphere" as the prerequisite for the "Niẓāmī and Khāqānī" units instead of "Qaṣīdas of Nāṣīr Khusraw" is more compatible both with the scientific-educational requirements of these courses and with the principles of educational planning.
Case Four: The Prerequisites for ʿAṭṭār's Masnavīs and Sanāʾī's Poetry
For all the units of "Poetry Texts (4)"—namely "Part One: Sanāʾī's Poetry," "Part Two: ʿAṭṭār's Masnavīs," "Part Three: Masnavī 1," and "Part Four: Masnavī 2"—the prerequisite is designated as "Poetry Texts (3)," which according to the pattern explained above is "Khāqānī." The problem of making Khāqānī's poetry a prerequisite for Sanāʾī's poetry is, first, a matter of historical precedence: Khāqānī's poetic career postdates the death of Sanāʾī. Khāqānī himself called himself "the successor of Sanāʾī" (badal-i Sanāʾī) and explicitly referred to his status as Sanāʾī's successor. How, then, can Khāqānī's poetry be considered a prerequisite for understanding Sanāʾī's poetry? Moreover, although Khāqānī's poetry contains concepts such as asceticism, wisdom, and Qalandarī themes, his poetry emerged in a period when Sanāʾī and ʿAṭṭār had already established their positions in the domain of mystical poetry. According to the curriculum, Khāqānī's qaṣīdas are examined from the perspectives of wisdom, panegyric, erotic poetry, elegy, and complaint; making Khāqānī's poetry a prerequisite for understanding the mystical poetry of Sanāʾī, ʿAṭṭār, and Rūmī is therefore not justified in terms of historical precedence and differences in content and literary genre. Many mystical masnavīs have a didactic function; for their precise understanding, familiarity with mystical doctrines and the history of mysticism is of special importance. The course "Foundations of Mysticism and Sufism" is an appropriate prerequisite for the three units of Sanāʾī's poetry, ʿAṭṭār's masnavīs, and Masnavī-ye Maʿnavī (1), all three of which have a mystical nature.
Case Five: The Prerequisite for Masnavī (2)
In the curriculum, the prerequisite for "Masnavī (2)" is designated as "Khāqānī." The irrelevance of this prerequisite is so evident that even without specialization in Persian Language and Literature, one can conclude merely by observing the titles of "Masnavī 1" and "Masnavī 2" that, by the requirement of educational order and gradation, "Masnavī 1" should be the prerequisite for "Masnavī 2." In educational systems, the sequential naming of courses usually indicates their content continuity and scientific precedence. In the detailed section of the curriculum, the objective of "Masnavī 2" is stated as "greater familiarity with Rūmī's poetic method." This objective clearly indicates the necessity of a prior level of familiarity, since the expression "greater familiarity" acquires meaning and educational function only when the student has already gained an initial familiarity with the poet. The detailed program also specifies that in Masnavī (1), the student should become familiar with Rūmī's life, works, poetic method, and intellectual sources, so that in Masnavī (2), the student may gain greater familiarity with his poetic method and thoughts. Nevertheless, according to the existing curriculum, the student is not required to pass "Masnavī 1" in order to take "Masnavī 2," but must pass "Khāqānī" as a prerequisite. In such a situation, the question may rightly be raised: how can an objective such as "greater familiarity with Rūmī" in "Masnavī 2" be achieved by passing "Khāqānī"? These two courses are not only disproportionate in terms of content and literary genre, but from the perspective of educational planning principles, the determination of such a prerequisite is incompatible with the tripartite principles of "continuity, sequence, and integration," as well as with the criteria of "constructive alignment" and "learning prerequisite sequence." The most appropriate prerequisite for "Masnavī 2," according to the logic of educational planning, is "Masnavī 1."
Case Six: The Prerequisite for Saʿdī's Poetry
For the unit "Poetry Texts (5), Part One: Saʿdī's Poetry," the prerequisite is designated as "Poetry Texts (4)," which according to the pattern explained above is "Masnavī 2." Placing "Masnavī 2" as the prerequisite for "Saʿdī's Poetry" is not scientifically justifiable from an educational perspective. A unit's being a prerequisite for another is justified when there is a direct and necessary relationship between the two courses in terms of knowledge and skill, such that learning the second course without mastery of the first becomes seriously difficult. Saʿdī's works, particularly Būstān and his ghazals, have an independent identity in terms of content, literary genre, language, structure, intellectual foundations, and aesthetics, and their understanding is not achieved through mastery of Rūmī's intellectual world and mode of expression. One of the most prominent features of Saʿdī's poetry is his unparalleled skill in utilizing the capacities of language and literary expression. Unlike the poetry of Sanāʾī, ʿAṭṭār, and Rūmī, whose understanding largely requires familiarity with the mystical system of thought and the theoretical foundations of Sufism, the locus of difficulty and, at the same time, the artistic distinction of Saʿdī's poetry lies less in the complex layers of mystical thought than in his mode of expression, rhetorical subtleties, verbal and semantic proportions, and artistic language. The most important prerequisite for precise understanding and systematic analysis of Saʿdī's poetry is therefore students' familiarity with rhetorical topics, not the passing of a unit such as "Masnavī 2" centered on mystical thought. Even if, for administrative reasons, it is not possible to designate both "Rhetoric (1)" and "Rhetoric (2)" as prerequisites for "Saʿdī's Poetry," the unit "Rhetoric (2)," whose topics concern imagery, literary figures, and modes of artistic expression, is more proportionate to the educational needs of "Saʿdī's Poetry" and can be introduced as a logical, justified, and appropriate prerequisite.
Case Seven: The Prerequisite for Ḥāfiẓ's Poetry
For the unit "Poetry Texts (5), Part Two: Ḥāfiẓ's Poetry," the prerequisite is again designated as "Poetry Texts (4)," which according to the pattern explained above is "Masnavī 2." Ḥāfiẓ's poetry is a multi-layered poetry containing an extensive network of imagery and verbal and semantic figures. Its understanding without systematic familiarity with rhetorical knowledge and the aesthetic mechanisms of his language would be very difficult. The understanding of the course unit "Ḥāfiẓ" therefore requires the passing of a unit that provides the student with analytical tools appropriate to Ḥāfiẓ's compressed and artistic expression. "Masnavī 2," despite its scientific value, cannot be an appropriate prerequisite for the course "Ḥāfiẓ" because, due to its reliance on narrative-didactic reading, the explanation of continuous stories, and the exposition of mystical thoughts in the structure of the masnavī, the requirements of reading Ḥāfiẓ's ghazal—including attention to brevity, artistic ambiguity, semantic coherence, and rhetorical subtleties—are not proportionate to the skills learned in "Masnavī 2." From the standpoint of the principles and foundations of educational planning, "continuity, sequence, and integration," "constructive alignment," and "learning prerequisite sequence" are not established between these two course units. The unit "Rhetoric 2" is therefore a far more scientific and logical prerequisite for the course "Ḥāfiẓ's Poetry," since this course, by teaching the foundations of imagery, literary figures, and methods of aesthetic analysis of the text, prepares the student to penetrate the artistic and semantic layers of Ḥāfiẓ's poetry.
Case Eight: The Prerequisite for Ṣāʾib and the Indian Style Poets
For the unit "Poetry Texts (5), Part Three: Ṣāʾib and the Indian Style Poets," the prerequisite is designated as "Poetry Texts (4)," which according to the pattern explained above is "Masnavī 2." The placement of "Masnavī 2" as the prerequisite for "Ṣāʾib and the Indian Style Poets" is not educationally defensible, because the central focus of "Masnavī 2" is the understanding and analysis of Rūmī's mystical thoughts, epistemological foundations, allegorical system, and didactic language, whereas the unit "Ṣāʾib and the Indian Style Poets" is based on the stylistic features, rhetorical transformations, complexities of imagery, semantic networks, subtleties of imagination, and linguistic transformations of poetry in the Indian style. This unit familiarizes students with components such as theme-creation, subtle imagination, semantic multi-layering, linguistic deviations, and mechanisms of image-making in this style. In addition to the difference in content, genre, and literary style of the two works, there is no preliminary and necessary relationship between the knowledge and skills acquired in "Masnavī 2" and the learning requirements of the unit "Ṣāʾib and the Indian Style Poets." The unit "Khāqānī," compared with "Masnavī 2," has greater educational proportionality with "Ṣāʾib and the Indian Style Poets" and, in terms of providing the preliminary knowledge and skills necessary for encountering the complex and dense poetry of the Indian style, has a more appropriate capacity for serving as a prerequisite. Although Khāqānī's poetry does not fall exactly within the domain of the Indian style in terms of content and style, the experience of reading and analyzing it can provide the preliminary knowledge and skills necessary for encountering some of the difficulties of Indian style poetry.
Case Nine: The Prerequisites for Tārīkh-i Bayhaqī, Kalīleh va Dimneh, and Gulistān
In the curriculum, the unit "Tārīkh-i Bayhaqī," usually offered in the first semester, is the prerequisite for "Kalīleh va Dimneh" in the second semester, and "Kalīleh va Dimneh" is the prerequisite for "Gulistān-i Saʿdī" in the third semester—apparently based on the historical precedence of these works. Tārīkh-i Bayhaqī, with its free-flowing prose, relatively natural sentence structure, narrative orientation, and fluent language, provides an appropriate basis for the student's preliminary familiarity with classical Persian prose. In contrast, "Kalīleh va Dimneh," as a prominent example of technical prose, has greater linguistic-rhetorical complexity due to the density of verbal and semantic figures, syntactic complexities, unfamiliar vocabulary, Arabic compounds and verses, long sentences, and multiple rhetorical layers. In addition to the stylistic difference between these two works, from the perspective of curriculum planning principles, "continuity, sequence, and integration," "constructive alignment," and "learning prerequisite sequence" are not established between them; more importantly, the principle of "simple-to-complex sequencing" and the principle of gradual guidance of learners from the simple educational level to the difficult level, emphasized in the SOLO taxonomy, have not been observed. The direct transition from "Tārīkh-i Bayhaqī" to "Kalīleh va Dimneh," without foreseeing an intermediate stage, is incompatible with the scientific-educational requirements of this discipline and the principles of curriculum planning. To remedy this inconsistency, "Gulistān-i Saʿdī" can play the role of an intermediate link between these two works, since its prose, in addition to rhetorical subtleties, literary figures, and linguistic eloquence, also possesses fluency, brevity, and relative simplicity, and gradually familiarizes the student with the artistic capacities of Persian prose and the balance between simplicity and artistic ornamentation. It therefore appears that rearranging the order of presentation of these two units, such that after Tārīkh-i Bayhaqī, Gulistān-i Saʿdī, and then Kalīleh va Dimneh are taught, is more consistent with the gradual guidance of students from simple to difficult prose and with the principles of curriculum planning.
Case Ten: The Prerequisite for the Elective Course "Selected Khurāsānī Style Poets"
For the elective course "Selected Khurāsānī Style Poets," the prerequisite is designated as "Poetry Texts (4)." This course has full content overlap with the course "Poets of the Khurāsān Literary Sphere," and the same objections raised in Case Two apply to it. The unit "Poetry Texts (1): Pioneers of Persian Poetry" is designated as the prerequisite for the elective course "Selected Khurāsānī Style Poets," which has full overlap with "Poets of the Khurāsān Literary Sphere." This approach by curriculum planners in developing elective courses indicates a logical connection between the poetry of the pioneers of Persian poetry and the Khurāsānī style poets, and it would be preferable for this appropriate selection to be applied in the compulsory course table as well.
Case Eleven: The Prerequisite for the Elective Course "Selected ʿIrāqī Style Poets"
For the elective course "Selected ʿIrāqī Style Poets," despite the fact that its prerequisite is correctly and appropriately designated as "Qaṣīdas of Nāṣir Khusraw," it lacks the necessary prerequisite for full overlap with the course "Poets of the ʿIrāqī Literary Sphere." The selection of this course as a prerequisite for students, while creating dissonance in the level of knowledge of the audience, also disrupts the educational process in the classroom; therefore, maintaining the educational system's coherence and standardizing the course requirements makes it necessary to designate a prerequisite for this course as well.
Case Twelve: The Prerequisite for the Elective Course "Selected Prose Texts (Historical-Literary)"
For the elective course "Selected Prose Texts (Historical-Literary)," the prerequisite is designated as "Prose Texts 2 (1)," while in the detailed section of the curriculum, the course "Tārīkh-i Bayhaqī" is mentioned as the prerequisite. This is while a course named "Takhṣīṣī Prose Texts 1" does not exist in the detailed curriculum or in the tables. It therefore appears that the curriculum planner intended "Prose Texts (1)" as the prerequisite, and emphasis on Tārīkh-i Bayhaqī as the prerequisite for this course is necessary and consistent with the official name of this unit.

Conclusion
The examination and evaluation of twelve cases of sequencing and prerequisite relationships in prose and poetry texts in the Bachelor's curriculum in Persian Language and Literature show that the determination of prerequisites in a considerable portion of cases follows a general and number-based pattern—a pattern in which, without precise determination of the prerequisite relationship among successive course units, the last unit of one set is placed as the prerequisite for the units of the subsequent set, giving rise to problems such as the following.
First, the sequencing of courses in some cases is incompatible with their historical and developmental trajectory. The placement of "Qaṣīdas of Nāṣir Khusraw" as the prerequisite for "Poets of the Khurāsān Literary Sphere" is an example; according to the arguments of the article, introducing "Pioneers of Persian Poetry" as the prerequisite for "Poets of the Khurāsān Literary Sphere" has greater educational justification. The examination of the relationship between "Pioneers of Persian Poetry" and "Qaṣīdas of Nāṣīr Khusraw" shows that placing "Poets of the Khurāsān Literary Sphere" between these two course units can create more appropriate historical, stylistic, and educational continuity.
Second, the examination of the relationship of the unit "Khāqānī" with "Sanāʾī's Poetry," "Masnavī 1," and "Masnavī 2," as well as the relationship of "Masnavī 2" with "Saʿdī's Poetry" and "Ḥāfiẓ's Poetry," shows that due to the disproportion of the prerequisites with the content, literary genre, and educational objectives of the main units, the mentioned prerequisites do not provide the knowledge and educational experience necessary for achieving the educational objectives of the main course. However, the article's proposal that "Foundations of Mysticism and Sufism" serve as the prerequisite for the mystical courses "Sanāʾī's Poetry," "ʿAṭṭār's Masnavīs," and "Masnavī-ye Maʿnavī 1," and that "Rhetoric 2" serve as the prerequisite for "Saʿdī's Poetry" and "Ḥāfiẓ's Poetry," has greater educational justification.
Third, the examination of "Masnavī 2" as the prerequisite for "Ṣāʾib and the Indian Style Poets" shows that, in addition to other inconsistencies with the principles of educational planning, there is no affinity between these two course units in terms of content, genre, and literary style. In this case, the course unit "Khāqānī," among the available options in the curriculum, is more proportionate to the educational needs of this course unit due to its provision of a preliminary experience for encountering the linguistic density, rhetorical complexities, theme-creation, and imagery of the Indian style.
Fourth, the examination of the prerequisite sequencing of "Tārīkh-i Bayhaqī," "Kalīleh va Dimneh," and "Gulistān-i Saʿdī" shows that exclusive reliance on the observance of the historical precedence of texts cannot alone determine prerequisite relationships, since it conflicts with the educational principle of "simple-to-complex sequencing" and the SOLO taxonomy. It is therefore necessary to move away from exclusive reliance on the historical sequence of texts in order to create gradation in the level of difficulty of texts and to observe other learning requirements. It appears that placing "Gulistān-i Saʿdī" between "Tārīkh-i Bayhaqī" and "Kalīleh va Dimneh" can provide a smoother process for teaching technical prose.
The findings of the present research show that determining appropriate sequencing and prerequisite relationships for prose and poetry text courses requires simultaneous attention to the specific scientific-educational requirements of the Persian Language and Literature discipline and the general principles of curriculum planning. The criteria of "learning prerequisite sequence" and "continuity, sequence, and integration" appeared with the highest frequency among the evaluation criteria and were exemplified in all the examined cases. The frequency of these two criteria can be considered indicative of the fundamental importance of the problem of sequencing and prerequisite relationships and may be regarded as confirmation of the necessity of revising this component of the Bachelor's curriculum in Persian Language and Literature.