نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

گروه زبان‌های خارجی، دانشگاه امیرکبیر، تهران، ایران.

10.30486/jsre.2020.551486.0

چکیده

هدف تحقیق حاضر، تحلیل محتوای کتاب‌های زبان انگلیسی مقطع متوسطه اول­ مدارس ایران با عنوان Prospectبر اساس فرایندهای چهارگانۀ نظریۀ یادگیری زایشی (یادگیری، زایش، خلق­معنا، انگیزش) است. بدین منظور، بر اساس این چهار فرایند اصلی چک­­لیستی تهیه گردید. چهار متخصص آموزش زبان و 21 معلم زبان به ارزیابی 9 درس منتخب سه کتاب بر اساس این چک­لیست پرداختند. روایی محتوایی این چک‌لیست بر اساس نظر 2 متخصص آموزش زبان مورد تأیید قرار گرفت و پایایی درونی و بیرونی رتبه­دهندگان برای این چک‌لیست معنادار بود. سپس میانگین­های به دست آمده با استفاده از روش ارزیابی درونی (internal evaluation) مورد بررسی قرار گرفت. نتایج ارزیابی درونی نشان می­دهد که کتاب‌های Prospect از نظر فرایند زایشی موفق، از نظر فرایند خلق معنا متوسط و از نظر فرایندهای یادگیری و انگیزش ضعیف ارزیابی شده­اند. همچنین، این کتاب‌ها از نظر توانایی تعمیم مطالب به محیط‌های غیرآموزشی که از اهداف روش تعاملی آموزش زبان بوده و از مؤلفه‌های مهم فرایند یادگیری است نیز میانگین پایینی کسب کردند. از نظر معیارهای انگیزشی، پرورش مهارت‌های تفکر، برانگیختن آگاهی و توجه نیز میانگین‌های پایینی به دست آمد. در انتها، پیشنهاد‌هایی به‌منظور بهبود کتاب ازجمله توجه به تعمیم یادگیری به محیط‌های بیرون کلاس، پرورش تفکر و انگیزش آگاهی در متن‌های انتخابی، تمرین‌ها و تکالیف ارائه شده‌اند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

A content analysis of selected chapters of the English textbooks for Iranian junior high schools (prospects) based on the four main processes of generative model of learning according to views of English language experts and teachers

نویسنده [English]

  • Farzaneh Dehghan

Department of Foreign Languages, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

چکیده [English]

The present study is an attempt to analyze the content of Prospect textbooks taught at the Iranian junior high schools according to the generative learning framework. Based on the four main processes of generative theory (motivation, learning, meaning making, generation), a checklist was developed. Four experts in TEFL and 21 English teachers were asked to analyze 9 selected lessons from the books. The content validity of the checklist was confirmed by the 4 experts and the intra- and inter-rater reliability indices showed a significant reliability level. Then, interval evaluation was used for the analysis of the obtained means. The results showed that the textbooks were evaluated as successful according to the generation criterion, moderate regarding meaning making criterion and weak in terms of learning and motivation criteria. Furthermore, the books were evaluated as weak regarding their generalizability power to non-learning contexts (which is an important aspect of communicative approaches) as well as motivation, developing thinking skills and raising awareness and attention criteria. Some suggestions are made for the improvement of generalizability of learning to out-of-class contexts, thinking skills and motivation in texts, exercises and tasks.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Communicative language teaching
  • Content Analysis
  • Generative Learning Theory
  • Iranian Junior High Schools
  • Prospect Textbooks

Ahmadi, A. & Derakhshan, A. (2015). An evaluation of the Iranian junior high school textbooks. International Journal of English Language and Literature Studies, 4(1), 37-48.

Ahmadi Safa, M. & Farahani, M. (2016). The development of intercultural competence in Prospect 1 book based on ideas of English as a foreign language teachers. The Critical Research Journal of Texts and Programs in Humanities, 3, 1-21.

Ahmadi Safa, M., Ghoncheh Poor, A., Malekmohammadi, R., Seifi, Z. & Zekrati, S. (2017). An overall evaluation of “Prospect II” from the perspective of English teachers. Journal of Language Research, 10(24), 7-32. doi: 10.22051/JLR.2016.2437.

Anabisarab, M.R. (2009). English language curriculum guide of high school: Opportunities and challenges of development and implementation. Educational Innovations Journal, 35(9), 172-199.

Anderman, E. M. (2010). Reflections on Witrrock’s Generative Model of learning: A motivational perspective. Educational Psychologist 45(1), 55-60.

Anderson, L.W., & Krathwohl, D.R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. NY: Longman.

Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C.& Sorensen, C. (2010). Introduction to research in education. (8th Ed.) NY: Wadsworth.

Ausubel, D. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Bazargan, A., Hejazi, Y. & Es’haghi, F. (2006). The process of conducting internal evaluation in universities’ educational departments. Tehran: Douran Publications.

Brown, D. (2014). Principles of language learning and teaching (6th Ed.). London: Pearson.

Ghaed Sharafi, A., Yamini, M. & Dehghan, F. (2019). Investigating predictors of high school students’ negative attitudes towards learning English by developing, validating and running a questionnaire. Journal of Research in applied Linguistics, 10(2), 136-158.

Ghiyasian, M., Seraj, F. & Bahreini, M. (2017). A content analysis of the ninth grade English textbook according to Iranian-Islamic culture and identity. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 11(43), 125-144.

Grabowsky, B. L. (2004). Generative learning contributions tothe design of instruction and learning. InD.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook ofResearch on Educational Communications and Technology, (pp. 719-734).Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London: Arnold.

Kelly, L. G. (1969). 25 centuries of language teaching. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Khezri, A., Marzoghi, R., Jahani, J. & Razmjoo, S.A. (2019). Designing an evaluation framework of English language curriculum in the secondary schooling of Islamic Republic of Iran. Research in Curriculum Planning, 16(35), 146-160.

Mackey, W.F. (1965). Language teaching analysis. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Mahmoudi, M.H. & Moradi, M. (2015). A critical and descriptive evaluation of the English textbook of junior high schools with an emphasis on foreign language teaching methodology. The Critical Research Journal of Texts and Programs in Humanities, 3, 179-196.

Olsen, R. & Kagan, S. (1992). About cooperative learning. In C. Kessler, (Ed.), Cooperative language learning: A teacher’s resource book, (pp. 1-30). New York: Prentice Hall.

Richards, J.C. & Rodgers, T.S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching (3rd Ed.). Cambridge: CUP.

Salehi, H. & Amini, M. (2016). Critical analysis of a new English textbook used in Iranian

 

junior high schools. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 3(3), 42-54.

Savignon, S. (2007). Beyond communicative language teaching: What’s ahead? Journal of Pragmatics 39, 207-220.

Schmidt, R. (1993). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 206-226.

Soodmand Afshar, H. (2015). A critical evaluation of the first grade junior high school English textbooks with an emphasis on critical discourse analysis: The representation of gender and power. The Critical Research Journal of Texts and Programs in Humanities, 15(3), 133-158.

Soodmand Afshar, H., Ranjbar, N., Yousefi, M. & Afshar, N. (2018). An evaluation of English textbooks Prospect and Vision I from intercultural and metacultural communicative competences. Journal of Educational Measurement & Evaluation Studies, 8(21), 107-139.

Spivey, N.N. (1997). The constructivist metaphor: Reading, writing and the making of meaning. San Diego: Academic Press.

Torki, F. & Chalak, A. (2017). An evaluation of English textbooks used in Iranian high schools: Teachers’ and learners’ attitudes. RELP, 5(1), 52-60.

Wittrock, M.C. (1974). Learning as a generative process. Educational Psychologist, 11, 87-95.

Wittrock,M.C. (1992). Generative processes of the brain. Educational Psychologist 27(4), 531-541.

Zangeneh, H., Nili, M.R., Fardanesh, H. & Delavar, A. (2014). Validating the generative model of learning for the analytic learning of students in biology. Educational Psychology, 9(33), 87-111.