ارزشیابی نمودهای رویکرد ارتباطی در کتاب انگلیسی (1) دورۀ اول متوسطه ایران

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 گروه زبان انگلیسی ، دانشکده علوم انسانی،دانشگاه تربیت دبیر شهید رجایی، تهران، ایران

2 گروه زبان انگلیسی ،دانشکده علوم انسانی ، دانشگاه تربیت دبیر شهید رجایی، تهران، ایران

3 گروه علوم تربیتی، دانشکده علوم انسانی، دانشگاه تربیت دبیر شهید رجایی، تهران، ایران

چکیده

نویسندگان ارجمند در پیشگفتار کتاب زبان انگلیسی پایۀ هفتم گفته‌اند که این کتاب با «رویکرد ارتباطی فعال خودباورانه» تألیف شده است.، این پژوهش به بررسی تمام دروس، تصاویر، متن و تمرین‌های این کتاب بر پایه مؤلفه‌های رویکرد ارتباطی و میزان کارآمدی آن پرداخته است و محقق بر آن است تا میزان انطباق محتوای کتاب را با اصول و اهداف رویکرد ارتباطی بررسی کند و به این پرسش پاسخ دهد که این کتاب تا چه اندازه با معیارهای رویکرد ارتباطی در آموزش زبان سازگار است. روش پژوهش در این پژوهش شیوۀ توصیفی است و ابزار آن دربرگیرندۀ شش مؤلفه از مؤلفه‌های رویکرد ارتباطی است که روایی آن از راه کسب نظر 5 نفر متخصص آموزش زبان فراهم‌شده است. دسته‌بندی محتوای کتاب به دست سه محقق حاضر به‌صورت جداگانه انجام‌شده است و نتیجه آن از پایایی برخوردار است. نتایج نشان می‌دهد که مؤلفه ارتباط گروهی دارای بیشترین وزن آنتروپی (370.) و مؤلفه‌ برقراری ارتباط زبانی دارای کمترین وزن آنتروپی (009.0) است. وزن آنتروپی دیگر مؤلفه‌ها عبارت‌اند از: مؤلفه میزان انطباق با فرهنگ کشور (167.0)، مؤلفه تقویت ارتباط دونفره (1390.)، مؤلفه توجه به اصل معناداری (079.0) و مؤلفه برقراری ارتباط از طریق شکاف اطلاعاتی (046.0). این کتاب همه مهارت‌های چهارگانه زبان انگلیسی را آموزش می‌دهد و درمجموع انطباق این کتاب با معیارهای ارتباطی قابل قبول است.

چکیده تصویری

ارزشیابی نمودهای رویکرد ارتباطی در کتاب انگلیسی (1) دورۀ اول متوسطه ایران

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Evaluation of Tokens of Communicative Language Teaching in Prospect (1) of Junior high school in Iran

نویسندگان [English]

  • Reza Nejati 1
  • Zahra Cheraghi 2
  • Azam Nasery 3
1 English Department, Faculty of Humanities, Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University, Tehran, Iran
2 Eng department,Faculty of Humanities, Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University, Tehran, Iran
3 Educational psychology,Srttu
چکیده [English]

Authors of Prospect (1) have stated that the book was developed based on dynamic communicative language teaching approach. The present study evaluates all texts, pictures and exercises of the book in terms of communicative language teaching criteria to assess its effectiveness. The researcher attempts to investigate the application of communicative language teaching in the content of the book under study. The study addresses this question ‘to what extend the content of the book is in harmony with principles of communicative language teaching. It is a descriptive study. The instrument entails six components of communicative language teaching and has been validated through content analysis by 5 scholars. Data collection was done by three researchers working independently. The results, analyzed through Shannon entropy revealed that group communication(0.37), lingual communication (0.009), culture comparing (0.167), two by two communication (0.139), meaningfulness (0.079) and information gap (0.046) carried content weight. Since the book covers all four language skills, it seems to be successful in terms of communicative language teaching principles

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • "evaluation"
  • "Lingual communication"
  • "meaningfulness"
  • "culture comparing"

[1] Yarmohammadian, M. (2002). Principles of curriculum planning. Tehran: Yadvare. [In Persian].

 

[2] Mehrmohammadi, M. (2010). Curriculum: principles and perspectives. Mashhad: Astane Qods Razavi. [In Persian].

 

[3] Krahnke, K. (1987). Approaches to syllabus design for foreign language teaching. New York: Prentice Hall.

 

[4]Yalden, J. (1983). The communicative syllabus: Evolution, design, and implementation. Oxford: Pergamon.

 

[5] Brindley, G. (1984). Needs analysis and subjective setting in the adult migrant education program. New South Wales: Adult Migrant Education Services for the Adult Migrant Education Program.

 

[6] GÜRBÜZ, A. (2013). Proposing a syllabus desıgn for oral communicative classes regarding teachers’ and students’ perceptions of modified output. (Unpublished Master’s thesis). University of Gaziantep, Gaziantep.

 

[7] Long, M. (Ed.). (2005). Second language needs analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

[8] Munby, J (1978). Communicative syllabus design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

[9] Safarnavade, K., Aliasgari, M., Moosapoor, N., & Annanisarab, M. R. (2010). Content analysis of English textbooks in high schools and evaluate them based on CLT approach, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 5(17), 86 -114 [In Persian].

 

[10]Ministry of education of Iran. (2009). Document of strategic reform in education system horizon. Tehran: Education Supreme Council [In Persian].

 

[11] Alavi Moghaddam, B., & Kheirabadi, R. (2014).    Examining the achievements of   Seventh grade Englishtextbook based on the national curriculum. Journal of Educational Innovations, 51(3), 23-26[In Persian].

 

[12] Richards, J. C.(2006). Communicative Language Teaching today. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

[13] Terrell, T.D. (1982). The natural approach to language teaching: An update. Modern Language Journal, 66 (2), 121-132.

 

[14] Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Holubec, E. (1994).Cooperative learning in the Classroom. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

 

[15]   Willis, J. (1996). A flexible framework for task-based learning. In J. Willis and D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and Change in Language Teaching (pp.235-256). Oxford: Heinemann.

 

[16] Nunan. D. (1991). Language teaching methodology: A textbook for teachers. UK: Prentice Hall.

 

[17]  Duff, P. A. (2014).Communicative language teaching, In M. Celce-Murcia, D., M. Brinton and M. a., Snow, (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or Foreign Language (pp.15-31).USA: Sherrise Roehr.

 

[18] Celce-Murcia, M. (2014). An overview of language teaching methods and approaches, In M. Celce-Murcia, D., M. Brinton and M. A., Snow, (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or Foreign Language (pp. 2-14).US: Sherrise Roehr.

 

[19] Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T., S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

[20] Brown, H., D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching. New York: Longman.

 

[21] Harmer, J. (1999). The practice of English language teaching. Essex: Longman.

 

[22] Celce-Murcia, M., Dörnyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1997). Direct approaches in L2 instruction: A turning point in Communicative Language Teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 31(1), 141-152.

 

[23] Savignon, Sandra J. (2007). Beyond communicative language teaching. New Haven & London: Yale University Press.

 

[24] Widdowson, H.G. (1990). Aspects of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

 

[25] Brumfit, C. J. (2001). The communicative approach to language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University press.

 

[26] Johnson, R. K. (1989). The second language curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

[27] Sadrzade. M.(2005). Communicative approach and Audio- Lingual method. Foreign Language Studies, 23, 119-138[In Persian].

 

[28] Kiani, G. R., Navidynia, H., & Momenian, M. (2011). Reviewing the national curriculum approach to teaching of foreign languages, Journal of linguistic researches and comparative literature, 2 (2), 185-209[In Persian].

 

[29] Hossainpour, Z. (2015). An overall evaluation of Iranian English language textbook: English for Schools “Prospect 1”. (Unpublished master’s thesis).University of Tehran, Tehran.

 

[30] Pishgham, R., & Rostami, Z. (2017). Evaluation of Grade seven English textbook: Developmental, individual-differences, relationship-based model. Journal of Humanities Program Critiques, 15(3), 25-42 [In Persian].

 

[31] Mahmoody, H., & Morady, M. (2017). Review and evaluation of quality of grade 1 textbook: Emphasis on foreign language teaching methodology. Journal of Humanities Program Critiques, 15(3), 179-196 [In Persian].

 

[32] Mirzaee, A. & Tahery, F. (2015). Evaluation of Grammar in English Textbook 1: Review of changes. Journal of Humanities Program Critiques,  15(3), 191-206 [In Persian].

 

[33] Rezvani, R., Mihankhah, Z., & Haghshenas, B. (2017).On the correspondence between new English textbook and final exam questions. Journal of New Approaches to Educational Management, 7(3), 179-191 [In Persian].

 

[34] Abbasian, G.R., & Hosseinifar, H. (2015).The teachability of the materials developed for Iranian EFL junior secondary program: Prospect I. Quarterly Journal of Research on Issues of Education, 49(2), 5-31.

 

[35] Kiani, G. R. (2015).From expectation to reality: Teachers’ perspectives of the newly developed English textbook (Prospect 1) of the first grade of junior high school. Quarterly Journal of Research on Issues of Education, 49(2), 51-74.

 

[36] John Gray, J. (2013). Critical perspectives on language teaching materials. US: Palgrave Macmillan.

 

[37] Drisko, J., W., & Maschi, T. (2016).Content analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

 

[38] Freeman, D., L. (1986). Technique and principle in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

 

[39] Ghanbari, A. (2013). Understanding CLT approach in English teaching. Retrieved from http://www.cltteacher.ir/index.php [In Persian].

 

[40] Jacobs, G., & Farrel, T. (2003). Understanding and implementing the CLT paradigm. RELC Journal, 41(1), 5-30.