سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی دانشگاه شهید بهشتی

خانی, محمدحسین, داوری اردکانی, نگار, بهرامی, فاطمه. (1401). تحلیلِ محتوای دستوری کتاب‌های درسی زبان انگلیسی متوسطۀ اول (پراسپکت) براساس رویکردِ دستور آموزشی. , 19(29), 13-43. doi: 10.52547/clls.19.29.13
محمدحسین خانی; نگار داوری اردکانی; فاطمه بهرامی. "تحلیلِ محتوای دستوری کتاب‌های درسی زبان انگلیسی متوسطۀ اول (پراسپکت) براساس رویکردِ دستور آموزشی". , 19, 29, 1401, 13-43. doi: 10.52547/clls.19.29.13
خانی, محمدحسین, داوری اردکانی, نگار, بهرامی, فاطمه. (1401). 'تحلیلِ محتوای دستوری کتاب‌های درسی زبان انگلیسی متوسطۀ اول (پراسپکت) براساس رویکردِ دستور آموزشی', , 19(29), pp. 13-43. doi: 10.52547/clls.19.29.13
خانی, محمدحسین, داوری اردکانی, نگار, بهرامی, فاطمه. تحلیلِ محتوای دستوری کتاب‌های درسی زبان انگلیسی متوسطۀ اول (پراسپکت) براساس رویکردِ دستور آموزشی. , 1401; 19(29): 13-43. doi: 10.52547/clls.19.29.13

تحلیلِ محتوای دستوری کتاب‌های درسی زبان انگلیسی متوسطۀ اول (پراسپکت) براساس رویکردِ دستور آموزشی

نقد زبان و ادبیات خارجی
مقاله 1، دوره 19، شماره 29، اسفند 1401، صفحه 13-43    اصل مقاله (850.45 K)
نوع مقاله: مقاله علمی پژوهشی
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.52547/clls.19.29.13
نویسندگان
محمدحسین خانی1؛ نگار داوری اردکانی* 2؛ فاطمه بهرامی3
1دانشجوی دکترا، گروه زبان‌شناسی، دانشکدۀ ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران
2دانشیار گروه زبانشناسی، دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی
3استادیار زبان‌شناسی، دانشکدۀ ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران
چکیده
مسئلۀ آموزش دستور از مسائلِ مهم در حوزۀ آموزش زبان است. بعد از فراز و نشیب‌هایی که آموزش دستور پشت سر گذاشته است، رویکرد خاصی شکل گرفته که به دستورآموزشی موسوم شده است. هدف پژوهش حاضر ارزیابی و تحلیلِ محتوای دستوری کتاب‌های زبان انگلیسی متوسطۀ اول در چارچوب اصولِ دستورآموزشی کک و کیم (2014) است. پس از استخراج و معرفی اصولِ دستورآموزشی، فهرست بازبینی‌ای مبتنی بر اصول مزبور طراحی شد که میزان انطباق محتوای دستوری کتاب‌ها با رویکرد دستورآموزشی را می‌سنجد. امتیازی که این مجموعه از مجموع 210 امتیاز کسب کرده است 135 است که حدوداً 64% از امتیاز کل است؛ بنابراین، میزانِ انطباق کتاب‌ها با اصول دستورآموزشی بالاتر از حد متوسط است. با بررسی و تحلیلِ کیفی مجموعه نیز مشخص شد که در تدوین کتاب‌ها، رعایت اصول توأم بودن آموزش ضمنی و صریح دستور، همراهی آموزشِ دستور و واژه، آموزش فشرده و گستردۀ ساخت‌های دستوری، پیوند صورت، معنا و کاربرد، توجه به قابلیتِ یادگیری و توانایی‌های پردازشی زبان‌آموزان، استفاده از ابزارهای مختلف برایِ جلب توجه زبان‌آموزان به ساخت‌های دستوری، نقاط قوت آن هستند و توجه ناکافی به اصولِ آموزش ارتباطی زبان، کم و نامناسب بودن دروندادها، غیرواقعی بودن دروندادها و عدم توجه به پیکره، عدم توجه به ارائۀ بازخورد تصحیحی، توجه ناکافی به نقش و اهمیت زبان‌آموزان در یادگیری نکات دستوری همکلاسی‌هایشان و توجه ناکافی به ساخت‌واژه، نقاط ضعف این مجموعه‌اند.
کلیدواژه‌ها
دستور زبان انگلیسی؛ کتاب درسی؛ زبان‌آموزان ایرانی؛ متوسطۀ اول؛ دستور آموزشی؛ تحلیل محتوا؛ فهرست بازبینی
عنوان مقاله [English]
A Content Analysis of the Grammar of Iranian Junior High School ELT Textbooks (Prospect) Based on Pedagogical Grammar Approach
نویسندگان [English]
Mohammadhossein Khani1؛ ٔNegar Davari Ardakani2؛ Fatemeh Bahrami3
1PhD candidate, Linguistics Department, Faculty of Letter and Human Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
2Associate Professor, Linguistics department, Faculty of letters and humanities, Shahid Beheshti University
3Assistant Professor, Linguistics Department, Faculty of Letter and Human Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]
Introduction: Textbooks are the basis of school education and the main sources of information for teachers and students. Many researchers emphasize on the fact that textbooks have a lot of problems and shortcomings in terms of social, cultural, educational and linguistic aspects. Grammar teaching is one of the most important issues in language instruction. Thus the purpose of this research is to evaluate and analyze the grammatical content of Iranian junior high school English textbooks in the framework of Keck and Kim (2014) Pedagogical Grammar.
Study Questions:
1. To what extent do these textbooks comply with the principles of pedagogical grammar?
2. According to the principles of pedagogical grammar, what are the strengths and weaknesses of the textbooks?
Literature Review: Theoretical framework of this research is Keck and Kim (2014) Pedagogical Grammar. According to them the most important principles of pedagogical grammar are as follows:
1. Learners' attentional resources are limited, thus stimulating their attention to the maximum, leads to better learning of language and consequently grammar.
2. Paying attention to the relation between form, meaning and use is a necessity of pedagogical grammar.
3. The preparation of the content of pedagogical grammar should be based on the linguistic corpora of the target language.
4. In compiling the content of pedagogical grammar, the instruction of both grammar and lexical items must be considered.
5. To consider the processing and learning abilities of the learners is important.
6. Grammar instruction must be done both explicitly and implicitly.
7. The use of different types of corrective feedback is very effective in grammar teaching.
8. Intensive and extensive instruction of grammatical structures is helpful in language learning.
9. The role and importance of language learners in learning grammar by other language learners is significant.
10. The content of pedagogical grammar should be designed based on meaningful communication exercises and tasks.
Methodology: After extracting and introducing the principles of pedagogical grammar, a checklist based on them was designed which measures the compliance of the grammatical content of the books with the mentioned approach.. After the checklist items were developed, 15 experts in the field of English language teaching and linguistics were asked to express their views on the checklist and its items in detail and determine the content validity ratio and content validity index of the items, based on the Likert scale. In total, the necessity and relevance of 42 out of 50 initially designed items were confirmed.
Results: The score that these books have obtained out of 210 total score is 135, which is approximately 64% of the total score. Therefore, the compliance of the books with the principles of pedagogical grammar is above average. A qualitative analysis also revealed that in compiling the books, observing the principles of
• implicit and explicit grammar teaching,
• attention to lexis-grammar interface,
• intensive and extensive instruction of grammatical structures,
• form, meaning and use relation,
• attention to learning and processing abilities of learners,
• the use of various tools to draw the learner's attention to grammatical structures,
are its strengths and
o non-compliance with the communicative language teaching principles,
o scanty and inappropriate input,
o lack of attention to the linguistic corpora of the target language and unrealistic input,
o inattention to the important of corrective feedback,
o insufficient attention to the significance of learners in learning the grammatical points by their classmates and
o insufficient attention to the importance of morphology
are the weaknesses of these books.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
English grammar, textbook, Iranian learners, junior high school, pedagogical grammar, content analysis, checklist
مراجع

⦁    Azarnoosh, M., & Ganji, M. (2014). ESP book evaluation: The case of management course book. International Journal of Secondary Education, 2(4), 61-65.
⦁    Baleghizadeh, S., & Aghazadeh, S. (2020). Content analysis of an English language teaching grammar textbook from a cultural perspective and status of English as an international language. Critical Language and Literary Studies, 17(24), 121-144. 
⦁    Baleghizadeh, S., & Gordani, Y. (2012). Core units of spoken grammar in global ELT textbooks. Issues in Language Teaching, 1(1), 33-58. 
⦁    Byrd, P. (2001). Textbooks: Evaluation for selection and analysis for implementation. In Celce-Murcia, M. (Eds.), Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (3rd ed., pp.415-427). US: Heinle & Heinle.
⦁    Celce-Murcia, M. (1991). Grammar pedagogy in second and foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 459-480.
⦁    Chand Sharma, T. (2002). Modern methods of language teaching. New Delhi: Sarup & Sons.
⦁    Cunningsworth, A. (1995). Choosing your coursebook. Oxford: Heineman.
⦁    Demir, Y., & Ertaş, A. (2014). A suggested eclectic checklist for ELT course book evaluation. The Reading Matrix Journal, 14(2), 243-252.
⦁    Dirven, R. (1985). Definition of a pedagogical grammar (seen from a linguist's point of view). ITL Review of Applied Linguistics, 67(1), 43-67.
⦁    Dirven, R. (1990). Pedagogical grammar. Language teaching, 23(1), 1-18.
⦁    Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
⦁    Ellis, R. (2009). Explicit form-focused instruction and second language acquisition. In Spolsky, B., & Hult, F. M. The Handbook of Educational Linguistics. Malden MA: Blackwell.
⦁    Fink, S. R. (1977). Aspects of a pedagogical grammar: based on case grammar and valence theory. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
⦁    Garinger, D. (2002). Textbook selection for the ESL classroom. Eric Digest, Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/digest_pdfs/0210garinger.pdf
⦁    Graves, K. (2000). Designing Language Course: A Guide for
Teachers. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
⦁    Hadar, L. L. (2017). Opportunities to learn: Mathematics textbooks and students’ achievements. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 55, 153–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2017.10.002 
⦁    Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of English language teaching (3rd ed.). New York: Longman Publishing.
⦁    Hutchinson, T., & Torres, E. (1994). The textbook as agent of change. ELT Journal, 48(4), 315-328.
⦁    Keck, C. & Kim, Y. (2014). Pedagogical grammar. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 
⦁    Larsen-Freeman, D. (2009) Teaching and testing grammar. In Long, M. H., & Doughty, C. J. (Eds.), The Handbook of Language Teaching (pp.518-542).Wiley- Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
⦁    Larsen-Freeman, D. (2014). Teaching grammar. In Celce-Murcia, M., Briton, D. M., & Snow, M. A. (eds.). Teaching English as a second or foreign language (4th ed) (pp. 256-270). US: Heinle Cengage Learning.
⦁    Lawshe, C. H. (1975) A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28, 563-575
⦁    Litz, D. (2005).Textbook evaluation and ELT management: A South Korean case study. Asian EFL Journal, 48, 1-53.
⦁    Long, M. H. (2009). Methodological principles for language teaching. In Long, M. H., & Doughty, C. J. (Eds.), Handbook of language teaching (pp. 373-94). Oxford: Blackwell.
⦁    Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 557–587. doi: 10.1017/S0272263199004027
⦁    McDonough, J., and Shaw, C. (2003) Materials and methods in ELT. Oxford: Blackwell.
⦁    McGrath, I. (2002). Materials evaluation and design for language teaching. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
⦁    Mukundan, J., & Ahour, T. (2010). A review of textbook evaluation checklists across four decades (1970-2008). In Tomlinson, B., & Masuhara, H. (Eds.). Research for materials development in language learning: Evidence for best practice (pp. 336-352). London: Continuum.
⦁    Newby, D. (2015). The role of theory in pedagogical grammar: A Cognitive+ Communicative approach. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 13-34.
⦁    Noblitt, J. S. (1972). Pedagogical grammar: Towards a theory of foreign language materials preparation. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (IRAL), 10 (4), 313-331. 
⦁    Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching and learning. Boston: Newbury House Publication.
⦁    Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching: A comprehensively revised edition of designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
⦁    Odlin, T. (1994). Perspectives on pedagogical grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
⦁    Pennington, M.C. (2002). Grammar and communication: New directions in theory and practice. In Hinkel, E. & Fotos, S. (Eds.), New Perspectives on Grammar Teaching in Second Language Classrooms (92-3). Mahwah, New Jersey and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
⦁    Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
⦁    Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2002). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. (3rd ed.). Edinburgh: Longman Publication.
⦁    Sabzalipour, B., & Koosha, M. (2014). The evaluation of Iranian high school English textbook from the prospective of Teachers. Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 3(3), 215-228.
⦁    Saliés, T. M. G. (2020). Ped Grammar in The Teaching and Learning of FLs. Rio de Janeiro: Rio de Janeiro State University.Sheldon, L. (1988). Evaluating ELT textbooks and materials. ELT Journal, 42(4). 237-246.
⦁    Sinclair, J. M. (1991). Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
⦁    Taylor, D. (1994). Inauthentic authenticity or authentic inauthenticity?, Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language, 1, 1-10.
⦁    Tok, H. (2010). TEFL textbook evaluation: From teachers' perspectives. Educational Research and Review, 5 (9), 508-517.
⦁    Tomlinson, B., Dat, B., Masuhara, H., & Rubdy, R. (2001). ELT courses for adults. ELT Journal, 55(1), 80-101.
⦁    Tomlinson, B. (2003). Developing materials for language teaching. London: Continuum.
⦁    Tomlinson, B. (2008). English language learning materials: A Critical review. London: Continuum.
⦁    Tomlinson, B. (2010). Principles of effective materials development. In Harwood, N. (Ed.), English language teaching materials: Theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
⦁    Waltz, C. F., & Bausell B. R. (1981). Nursing research: Design statistics and computer analysis. Philadelphia, PA, USA: Davis FA.
⦁    Wang, W. (2003). How is pedagogical grammar defined in current TESOL training practice? TESL Canada Journal, 21, 64–78. 

آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 3,432
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 1,764