Evaluation of tokens of Communicative Language Teaching in Prospect (1) of junior high school in Iran

Nejati, R.; Cheraghi, Z.; Nasery, A.

doi:10.22061/jte.2018.3236.1826

Document Type : Original Research Paper

Authors

¹ English Department, Faculty of Humanities, Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University, Tehran, Iran

² Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Humanities, Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University, Tehran, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22061/jte.2018.3236.1826

Abstract

Backgrounds and Objectives:Today, all over the world and in our country, the need to speak English has increased and has caused a lot of demand for learning this language. This need is met through various means such as formal education in schools and colleges, travel to English-speaking countries, and so on. But classroom teaching seems to be the most common opportunity for language learning; Therefore, the need for quality education and appropriate materials is inevitable. According to education experts, the textbook is a manifestation of the approved curriculum of the educational system. The textbook is one of the most important sources of learning in educational systems and is the main material of the school curriculum. Research on textbooks is necessary because it is used by many teachers and students effective in designing appropriate learning opportunities for students. Studying textbooks can reveal the connection between some of the students' learning difficulties and the curriculum and help to incorporate the concepts of the curriculum in the appropriate way in the textbooks. 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’.
Methods: It is a descriptive content analysis 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. Kappa agreement statistic is greater than 0.8 indicating satisfactory inter-rater reliability.
Findings:The results, analyzed through Shannon entropy revealed that group interaction (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. The book seems to be effective in terms of communicative language teaching principles.
Conclusion: Based on the obtained results, the importance of the components of communication approach in the 7th grade English textbook is as follows: 1. Strengthening group communication, 2. Adapting to the culture of the country, 3. Strengthening two-way communication, 4. Meaningful principle, 5. Information gap, 6. Lingual communication. The most prominent feature of this book is that it adequately addresses the components of the communication approach. Attention to strengthening group communication indicates that language teaching is moving away from the traditional method, which helps the learner a lot. Paying attention to the adaptation of the educational content to the culture of the country makes the content of the courses tangible and attractive and strengthens learning.

Keywords

20.1001.1.20080441.1397.12.4.4.4

Main Subjects

English teaching

References

1] Yarmohammadian M. Principles of curriculum planning. Tehran: Yadvare; 2002. Persian.

[2] Mehrmohammadi M. Curriculum: principles and perspectives. Mashhad: Astane Qods Razavi; 2010. Persian.

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

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

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

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

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

[8] Munby J. Communicative syllabus design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1978.

[9] Safarnavade K, Aliasgari M, Moosapoor N, Annanisarab MR. Content analysis of English textbooks in high schools and evaluate them based on CLT approach, Journal of Curriculum Studies. 2102; 5(17): 86 -114. Persian.

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

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

[12] Richards JC. Communicative Language Teaching today. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2006.

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

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

[15] Willis J. 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; 1996.

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

[17] Duff PA. 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; 2014.

[18] Celce-Murcia M. 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; 2014.

[19] Richards JC, Rodgers TS. Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001.

[20] Brown HD. Principles of language learning and teaching. New York: Longman; 2007.

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

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

[23] Savignon SJ. Beyond communicative language teaching. New Haven & London: Yale University Press; 2007.

[24] Widdowson HG. Aspects of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1990.

[25] Brumfit CJ. The communicative approach to language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University press; 2001.

[26] Johnson RK. The second language curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1989.

[27] Sadrzade M. Communicative approach and Audio- Lingual method. Foreign Language Studies. 2005; 23: 119-138. Persian.

[28] Kiani GR, Navidynia H, Momenian M. Reviewing the national curriculum approach to teaching of foreign languages, Journal of Linguistic Researches and Comparative Literature. 2011; 2(2): 185-209. Persian.

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

[30] Pishgham R, Rostami Z. (2017). Evaluation of Grade seven English textbook: Developmental, individual-differences, relationship-based model. Journal of Humanities Program Critiques. 2017; 15(3): 25-42. 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. 2017; 15(3): 179-196. Persian.

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

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

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

[35] Kiani GR. 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. 2015; 49(2): 51-74.

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

[37] Drisko JW, Maschi T. Content analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2016.

[38] Freeman DL. Technique and principle in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1986.

[39] Ghanbari A. (2013). Understanding CLT approach in English teaching; 2013. Persian.

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