پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 25 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 939 |
| تعداد مقالات | 7,734 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 12,721,648 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 9,063,875 |
بررسی آموزش نوشتن در کتاب‌های درسی آموزش فارسی و نگارش دوره ابتدایی برمبنای رویکرد فرآیندمحور و برنامۀ قصدشده | ||
| زبان پژوهی | ||
| مقاله 2، دوره 11، شماره 32، آذر 1398، صفحه 27-48 اصل مقاله (676.04 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22051/jlr.2019.20732.1556 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| عادله مطلق1؛ ملوک خادمی* 1؛ مریم دانشگر2 | ||
| 1گروه روانشناسی تربیتی دانشکده روانشناسی و علوم تربیتی دانشگاه الزهرا (س) تهران | ||
| 2استادیار زبان و ادب فارسی / فرهنگستان ادب و زبان فارسی، تهران | ||
| چکیده | ||
| نوشتن، پیچیده‌ترین مهارت زبانی است که در آموزش آن نیاز به فراگیری مهارت‌های شناختی و فراشناختی بسیاری است که با توجه به بعد عاطفی و اجتماعی محقق می‌شود. هدف پژوهش حاضر، بررسی میزان پرداختن به این مهارت‌ها در برنامه درسیِ مورد نظر و کتاب‌های درسی فارسی دوره ابتدایی است. زیرا این منابع، مهمترین منبع‌های آموزش نوشتن در کشور به شمار می‌آیند. مبنای نظری پژوهش، رویکرد فرآیندمحور است. نمونه آماری پژوهش، کتاب فارسی (مهارت‌های خوانداری) و کتاب فارسی (مهارت‌های نوشتاری) پایه ششم بوده‌اند. این کتاب‌ها با روش تحلیل محتوای هدایت‌شده یا قیاسی بررسی شدند. کتاب‌ها از جنبة دارا بودن مهارت‌های پایه یا خرد، مهارت‌های سطح بالا یا کلانِ نوشتن، فرصت‌های نوشتن برای این مهارت‌ها و همچنین ایجادِ اجتماعی از نویسندگان، تجزیه و تحلیل شدند. در استخراج و پردازش یافته‌ها از آمار توصیفی بهره گرفته شد. یافته‌های پژوهش نشان داد که در کتاب‌های فارسی پایه ششم، بیشتر به مهارت‌های خرد و پایه پرداخته می‌شود و نسبت به مهارت‌های کلان و سطح بالا کم‌توجهی یا بی‌توجهی می‌شود. نتایج همچنین نشان داد رویکرد غالب در این کتاب‌ها به آموزش نوشتن رویکردی برآیندنگر است و تناسبی میان ابعاد شناختی، عاطفی و رفتاری نوشتن وجود ندارد. بیشترین تأکید بر بعد رفتاری و کمترین تأکید بر بعد عاطفی است. برنامة قصدشده نیز رویکردی برآیندنگر دارد. هرچند رویکرد محتوای نوشته‌شده با برنامة قصدشده هماهنگ است، بی‌توجهی به رویکرد فرایندمحور که روشی مؤثر در امر آموزش به‌ویژه در آموزش مهارت نوشتن است، به عنوان کاستی فراگیر و آسیبی مهم باید مورد توجه متخصصان این حوزه قرار گیرد. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| آموزش مهارت نوشتن؛ تحلیل محتوا؛ رویکرد برآیندی؛ رویکرد فرآیندی؛ رویکرد فرآیندمحور؛ مهارت‌های پایه نوشتن؛ مهارت‌های سطح بالای نوشتن | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Study of Writing Instruction in Reading and Writing Textbooks of Primary School Based on the Process Approach and the Intended Curriculum | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Adeleh Motlagh1؛ Molok Khademi1؛ Maryam Daneshgar2 | ||
| 1Educational Psychology Group, Psychology And Educational Science, Alzahra University, Tehran | ||
| 2Assistant Professor of Persian Language and Literature/ Academy of Literature and Persian Language, Tehran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| In each country, educational systems play an important role in moving ahead of their goals to adapt to the changes in society. Language skills are the main objectives of the primary curriculum. Clearly, competence in them requires education and any education needs a program while program needs to be evaluated for improvement. Writing is an integral part of contemporary education because of its relation to thinking and reading. Writing is a valuable factor both for the current education reform and for individual success at school and at work; therefore, it is essential for educators to define the strengths and weaknesses of the current school curriculum. However in the field of writing, there has been much less research in the country and no changes are offered in writing as a result of the transformation of philosophical and theoretical foundations. Therefore, in this research, it was attempted to evaluate the written curriculum of primary writing instruction based on the theoretical foundation and written curriculum. There are two main approaches to writing: Product Approach and Process Approach. The Product approach is derived from the behavioral theory and the positivism philosophy, wherein the emphasis is on the teacher and the lower-level cognitive functions. In this approach, educational methods are more one-dimensional and teacher-centered. Writing in this perspective is based on grammar and the regularization is through direct teaching. Students write in one step and teacher also scores in another step to the final writing. Therefore, in this approach, the emphasis is on basic skills such as handwriting, spelling and linguistic knowledge –i.e. word-formation and grammar. By the change in the philosophy of teaching from positivism to post-positivism, the process-writing approach transformed the old approach –i.e., the product approach. In this approach, the emphasis is on the student, problem, and process. The process of writing transforms thoughts and ideas into the final text and emphasizes the construction of meaning and its transition. Over time, the process approach evolved and introduced other dimensions. This research is based on the process approach merged with other approaches. Effective elements derived from other approaches are well combined with the writing process and show positive results in research. Thus, a pattern of writing education is used that takes into account the training and opportunities of writing for high-level skills such as strategies, goals, criteria of evaluation and growth of self-regulation strategy as well as basic skills in an interactive and collaborative context. Since the process of writing is the central element in this approach, the theoretical foundation of this research is called the process-oriented approach. The textbook is one of the most important references and resources for the students’ learning in our country’s educational system. In Iran, most educational activities are carried out within the framework of the textbook and the most educational activities and experiences of students and teachers are organized around it. So, in this study, it is tried to investigate writing skills in primary school’s reading and writing textbooks and the writing approach used in that according to teacher guidebook. This research seeks to answer the two fundamental questions: “Is the approach of reading and writing textbooks to the writing instruction based on modern teaching methods?” and “Is the approach of reading and writing textbooks to writing instruction coordinated with the intended approach in the teacher’s guidebook?” The method of measurement in this research is guided content analysis or analogy-based content analysis. In a guided or analogy-based approach, the basis of the analysis is the existing theory or the results of previous research as initial codes. Content of these textbooks were analyzed based on basic or micro level skills as well as high or macro level skills, writing opportunity for these skills and access to writers community. The statistical population of the study is reading, writing textbooks and teacher guidebook for primary school. In grade selection, it is expected that higher grade will become more advanced in writing; therefore, the sixth grade as the final year of the selected period was targeted and the data were collected. Descriptive statistics was used to obtain the results. The results showed that in sixth-grade reading and writing textbooks, there is more attention to basic and micro level skills and low or no attention is paid to macro and high-level skills. Results showed that the writing instruction model is not based on the process approach, but has the traditional approach components and there is no balance between the cognitive, affective and behavioral dimensions of writing instruction in written content. The highest value is for the behavioral dimension and the lowest value is for the affective dimension. In addition, in the cognitive and behavioral dimension, the higher attention was to basic skills. Findings also showed that the written curriculum is coordinated with the intended curriculum. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Teaching writing skills, Content analysis, Process Approach, Product Approach, Process-based Approach, Basic writing skills, High-level writing skills | ||
|
سایر فایل های مرتبط با مقاله
|
||
| مراجع | ||
|
اکبری شِلدَره، فریدون، نعمت‌الله ایران‌زاده، نازیلا بهروان، فردوس حاجیان، حسن ذوالفقاری، مرجان سجودی، حسین سنگری، محمّدرضا قاسم‌پورمقدّم، راحله محمّدی، مهتاب میرایی آشتیانی، سلیم نیساری و عبّاس‌علی وفایی (1393). فارسی (مهارت‌های خوانداری)، ششم دبستان. تهران: اداره کل نظارت بر نشر و توزیع مواد آموزشی. اکبری شِلدَره، فریدون، نعمت‌الله ایران‌زاده، نازیلا بهروان، فردوس حاجیان، حسن ذوالفقاری، مرجان سجودی، حسین سنگری، محمّدرضا قاسم‌پورمقدّم، راحله محمّدی، مهتاب میرایی آشتیانی، سلیم نیساری و عبّاس‌علی وفایی. (1393). فارسی (مهارت‌های نوشتاری)، ششم دبستان. تهران: اداره کل نظارت بر نشر و توزیع مواد آموزشی. اکبری شِلدَره، فریدون، نعمت‌الله ایران‌زاده، نازیلا بهروان، فردوس حاجیان، حسن ذوالفقاری، مرجان سجودی، حسین سنگری، محمّدرضا قاسم‌پورمقدّم، راحله محمّدی و مهتاب میرایی آشتیانی (1391). کتاب معلم فارسی ششم دبستان. تهران: ادارۀ کلّ چاپ و توزیع کتاب هاى درسى. ﺣﺴﺮﺗﻲ، ﻣﺼﻄﻔﻲ.(1384). ﻧﮕﺎﺭﺵ ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻫﻲ ﺩﺭ دانشگاه‌های ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ: ﺣﻠﻘﺔ ﮔﻤﺸــﺪﺓ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺵ ﻋﺎﻟﻲ. ﻓﺼﻞﻧﺎﻣﺔ ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺶ ﻭ برنامه‌ریزی ﺩﺭ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺵ ﻋﺎﻟﻲ. دوره 11. شماره 2-1. صص 103- 138. حسنی آبیز، زهرا. (1388). ارزشیابی برنامه، کارکرد آموزگاران، و دستاوردهای دانش آموزان پایه پنجم در درس نگارش از دیدگاه سازایی گری. پایان‌نامة کارشناسی ارشد. دانشگاه الزهرا (س). دانای طوسی، مریم و کیامنش، علیرضا. (1388). «رویکردهای نظری زیربنای تعریف سواد: شواهدی از برنامه درسی کشورهای آمریکا، کانادا، انگلستان، سنگاپور، سنگال، اندونزی و ایران». نوآوری های آموزشی. شماره 31. صص 100-75. دانشگر، مریم. (1396). «مهارت‌های دانش‌آموختگان نظام متوسطه با محوریت درس زبان و ادبیات فارسی (مطالعه موردی شهر تهران)». جستارهای زبانی. دوره 8. شماره 1. صص 231-256. کیاشمشکی، لیلا و صحرائی، رضامراد. (1397). «ارزیابی مجموعۀ آموزشی فارسی شیرین است بر مبنای مجموعه شاخص‌های کانینگزورث». زبان پژوهی. سال 10. شمارة 27. صص 147-169. موسوی، سید ایمان، غلامرضا کیانی، رامین اکبری و رضا غفار ثمر. (1395). «سیر تکاملی آگاهی از ژانر رشته تخصصی با آموزش مهارت‌های دانشگاهی: یک مطالعه موردی». جستارهای زبانی. دورة 7. شمارة 3 . صص 171-196. References
Agate, L. (2005). Investigation of primary grade writing instruction (Unpublished P.hD. dissertation). University of Maryland, Maryland, USA.
Applebee, A. N. (1986). Problems in process approaches: toward a reconceptualization of process instruction. In A. R. Petrosky & D. Bartholomae (Eds.), The teaching of writing. 85th Yearbook. Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.
Atwell, N. (1987). In the middle: Writing, reading, and learning with adolescents. Upper Montclair: Boynton/Cook.
Badger, R., & White, G. (2000). A process genre approach to teaching writing. ELT Journal, 54(2), 153-160.
Boscolo, P. (2008). Writing in primary school. In C. Bazerman (Ed.), Handbook of research on writing: history, society, school, individual, text (pp. 293-309). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Calkins, L. M. (1986). The art of teaching writing. Porthmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Culham, R. (2003). 6 + 1 Traits of writing: the complete guide grades 3 and up. New York: Scholastic.
Danaye Tusi, M. (2009). Theoretical approaches to the definition of literacy: evidence from the curriculum of the United States, Canada, England, Singapore, Senegal, Indonesia and Iran. Educational innovations, 31, 75-100 [In Persian].
Daneshgar, M. (2017). High school graduates’ skills in the middle school of Persian language and literature (case study of Tehran). Language Queries, 8(1), 231-256 [In Persian].
De La Paz, S. (1999). Teaching writing strategies and self-regulation procedures to middle school students with learning disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 31(5), 1-16.
Akbari Sheldareh, F., Iranzadeh, N. A., Behravan, N., Hajian, F., Zolfaghari, H., Sujoudi, M., Sangari, M. R., Ghasempour Moghaddam, H., Mohammadi, R., Mirai Ashtiani, M., Nisari, S. & Vafai, A. A. (2013a). Sixth primary school (reading skills). Tehran, Iran: General Office of Supervision on the Publication and Distribution of Educational Materials [In Persian].
Akbari Sheldareh, F., Iranzadeh, N. A., Behravan, N., Hajian, F., Zolfaghari, H., Sujoudi, M., Sangari, M. R., Ghasempour Moghaddam, H., Mohammadi, R., Mirai Ashtiani, M., Nisari, S. & Vafai, A. A. (2013b). Farsi, sixth primary school (writing skills). Tehran, Iran: General Office of Supervision on the Publication and Distribution of Educational Materials [In Persian].
Akbari Sheldareh, F., Iranzadeh, N. A., Behravan, N., Hajian, F., Zolfaghari, H., Sujoudi, M., Sangari, M. R., Ghasempour Moghaddam, H., Mohammadi, R., & Mirai Ashtiani.M.(2011). Farsi sixth primary school teacher’s guidebook. Tehran, Iran: Publication and Distribution of Educational Materials [In Persian].
Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445-476.
Graham, S., Bollinger, A., Booth Olson, C., D’Aoust, C., MacArthur, C., McCutchen, D., &Olinghouse, N. (2012). Teaching elementary school students to be effective writers: a practice guide (NCEE 2012-4058). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Graham, S., Harris, K. R., Mason, L., Fink-Chorzempa, B., Moran, S., & Saddler, B. (2008). How do primary grade teachers teach handwriting: a national survey. Reading & Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21, 9–69.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. (2005). Writing better: teaching writing processes and self-regulation to students with learning problems. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Graham, S., McKeown, D., Kiuhara, S., & Harris, K. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for students in the elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 896. doi: 10.1037/a0029185.
Graham, S., & Sandmel, K. (2011). The process writing approach: a meta-analysis. The Journal of Educational Research, 104(6), 396-407.
Graham, S. (2008). Effective writing instruction for all Students. Written for Renaissance Learning Retrieved from <http://doc.renlearn.com/KMNet/R004250923GJCF33.pdf>
Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Mason, L. (2003). Self-regulated strategy development in the classroom: Part of a balanced approach to writing instruction for students with disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 35(7), 1-16.
Hassani Abiz, Z. (2009). Evaluation of teachers’ function and achievements of fifth grade students in the course of writing from the constructivism perspective (Master thesis). Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran [In Persian].
Hassrati, M. (2005). Academic writing at Iranian universities: the lost hearts of higher education. Research and Planning Journal in Higher Education, 11(1-2), 103-138 [In Persian].
Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Writing as problem solving. Visible Language, 14(A), 388-399.
Hedge, T. (2005). Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hillocks, G. (1986). Research on written composition: new directions for teaching. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Honeycutt, R. L., & Pritchard, R. J. (2005). Using a structured writing workshop to help good readers who are poor writers. In Rijlaarsdam, G., van den Bergh, H., & Couzijn, M. (Eds.). Effective Learning and Teaching of Writing (pp. 141-150). New York: Springer.
Jacobs, G. M. (2004). A classroom investigation of the growth of metacognitive awareness in kindergarten children through the writing process. Early Childhood Education Journal, 32(1), 17-23.
Kiashemshaki, L. & Sahraei, R. (2018). The evaluation of the “Farsi Shirin Ast” collections based on the Caningesworth Indices. Zabanpajuhi, 10(27), 147-169 [In Persian].
Luke, S. D. (2006). The power of strategy instruction. Evidence for Education, 1(1), 1-12.
McArture, C., & Graham, S. (2016). Writing research from a cognitive perspective. In A. Ch. Macarthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), excerpted from Handbook of Writing Research (pp. 24-40). New York: Guilford Press.
McQuitty, V. (2011). Lesson study: developing a knowledge base for elementary writing instruction (Master thesis). Syracuse University, New York, USA.
Mousavi, S. M., Kiani, G., Akbari, R., & Ghaffar Samar, R. (2016). Evolution of knowledge of the specialty genre by teaching academic skills: a case study. Language Queries, 7(3), 171-196 [In Persian].
National Commission on Writing (2003). The neglected R: the need for a writing revolution. New York, NY: CollegeBoard.
Tobin, L. (2001). Process pedagogy. In G. Tate, A. Rupiper, & K. Schick (Eds.), A guide to composition pedagogies (pp. 1-18). New York: Oxford University Press.
National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) (2008). A policy research brief produced by the National Council of Teachers of English. Retrieved from <http://www.ncte.org/resources/policy-briefs/>
Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching & learning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Peacock, G. G., Ervin, R. A., Daly, E. J., III & Errell, K. W. (2009). Practical Handbook of School Psychology: Effective Practices for the 21st Century. New York: Guilford Publications.
Sipe, Rebeca B. (2013). Strategies for writers, foundational research. Retrieved from <http://www.zaner-bloser.com>
Troia, G. A. (2003). Effective writing instruction across the grades: what every educational consultant should know. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 14(1), 75-89. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 1,307 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 576 |
||
