تحلیل محتوای کتاب‌‌‌های نگارش فارسی دوره‌‌‌ی دوم ابتدایی بر اساس پیوستار نوشتن

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

نویسنده ی مسئول، استادیار گروه زبان و ادبیات فارسی، دانشگاه فرهنگیان اردبیل

10.30479/jtpsol.2020.13024.1479

چکیده

پژوهش حاضر، تمرین‌‌‌های نوشتاری کتاب‌‌های نگارش فارسی دوره‌‌‌ی دوم ابتدایی را بررسی و تحلیل کرده است. ابزار اصلی این پژوهش، طبقه‌‌‌بندی پیشنهادی است که در چارچوب مطالعات نوشتن محققانی همچون ورقاس، 1989؛ دیکسون، 2001؛ هارتانتی، 2011؛ جوریا، 2015، هارتانتی، 2011، دیکسون، 2001، ورقاس، 1989 و ...، و در مطابقت با فعالیت‌‌‌‌های نوشتاری کتاب‌‌‌های نگارش فارسی طراحی شده است. پژوهش حاضر از نوع توصیفی- تحلیلی است. ابتدا تمرین‌‌‌های کتاب‌‌های نگارش فارسی دوره‌‌‌ی دوم ابتدایی مورد شمارش قرار گرفته است. سپس تمرین‌‌‌ها در سطوح و زیرمقوله‌‌های مختلف طبقه‌بندیِ پیشنهادی قرار داده شده‌‌‌‌‌‌اند و فراوانی آن‌ها مشخص گردیده است. برای تجزیه و تحلیل داده‌ها نیز از نرم افزار اِس. پی. اِس. اِس 20، استفاده شده است. نتایج کدگذاری 386 تمرین نشان داد که حجم قابل ‌‌توجهی ازاین کتاب‌‌‌ها (% 70،46) به تمرین‌‌ها و فعالیت‌‌‌های نوشتاریِ نوشتن کنترل‌‌‌شده اختصاص یافته است که بر تقویت دانش زبانی و فعالیت‌‌‌‌های سطح پایین نوشتن تأکید دارد. بنابراین، رویکرد محصول‌‌‌نگر، رویکردی غالب در آموزش مهارت نوشتن کتاب‌‌‌های نگارش فارسی است. به نظر می‌‌‌رسد که نگاه متوازن به طراحی و تدوین تمرین‌‌‌های هر دو سطح پایه و بالای نوشتن در کتاب‌‌‌های درسی، باید از جانب برنامه‌‌ریزان و مؤلفان مورد توجه قرار گیرد. افزون ‌بر این، نتایج تحلیل آماریِ (آزمون خی دو و آزمون وی کرامر) داده‌‌ها نشان داد که بین تمرین‌‌‌های کتاب‌‌های نگارش سه پایه‌‌ی دوره‌‌ی دوم ابتدایی تفاوت معناداری وجود دارد (0.05>p) و با ارتقاء یافتن دانش‌‌‌‌آموزان به پایه­‌‌‌های‌‌ تحصیلی بالاتر و افزایش دانش زبانی و دانش حاصل از تجربه‌‌ی آن‌‌‌‌ها، سطح طراحی تمرین‌‌های نوشتن نیز بالاتر رفته است. یافته‌‌ها و نتایج این پژوهش می‌‌‌تواند در حوزه‌‌های مختلف نظام آموزش و پرورش، از جمله در حوزه‌‌ی طراحی و تدوین مواد آموزشی و حوزه‌‌ی تدریس مورد استفاده قرار گیرد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Analyzing the writing tasks of Persian writing textbooks used at primary schools (4th, 5th and 6th grades) based on the writing continuum

نویسنده [English]

  • Abdolhossein Heydari
Corresponding author, Assistant Professor, Department of Language and Literature, Farhangian University, Ardabil, Iran.
چکیده [English]

This paper attempted to study the writing tasks of Persian writing textbooks used at primary schools (4th, 5th and 6th grades). The main tool of the research is a taxonomy designed within writing continuum and in accordance to the writing tasks of Persian writing textbooks. The research method of this paper is descriptive-analytic. At first the writing tasks of Persian writing textbooks were accounted and they were classified according to the proposed taxonomy. The data has been analyzed by using (SPSS 20). Results from the codification of 386 tasks showed that the distribution of the items in the taxonomy is not the same. The majority of writing tasks in the writing textbooks (70, 46 %) has been allocated to controlled writing emphasizing on improving the language knowledge and basic lower-level writing skills. It shows that the product-approach is the dominant approach in Persian writing textbooks used at primary schools (4th, 5th and 6th grades). So the textbook designers should pay attention the balance between basic skills and higher-level ones in writing skill. In addition, a significant difference was found between writing tasks of the textbooks in their inclusion of different levels of the taxonomy. It can also be said that as the students proceed to higher grades and their language knowledge and background knowledge develop, the level of writing task designing gets higher.
Extended Abstract:
Writing is a way to produce the language which comes from our thought. Nunan (2003) claimed that learning to write fluently and expressively is the most difficult of four language skills for all students.For this reason, there should be appropriate materials, which cater for the students needs.
This paper attempted to study the writing tasks of Persian writing textbooks used at primary schools (4th, 5th and 6th grades). The main tool of the research is a taxonomy designed within the framework of previous researchers (Juriah, 2015; Hartanti, 2011; Dickson, 2001; Verghase, 1989& …) and in accordance to the writing tasks of Persian writing textbooks.
According to Hyland (2003), since the development of the writing as a distinctive area of scholarship, two major approaches have been introduced: product-oriented approach and process-oriented approach. Product approach sees writing as being primarily about linguistic knowledge. This approach may include the skills of getting the grammar right, having a range of vocabulary, punctuating meaningfully, using the conventions of layout correctly, e.g. in letters, spelling accurately, using a range of sentence structures.The process approach stresses the composing processes of planning, drafting, and revising.The major aim of the process approach is to train writers how to generate ideas for writing,plan  these  ideas, draft and redraft in order to produce a final written paper that is likely to communicate their own ideas. 
Various studies (Verghase, 1989; Dickson, 2001; Hartanti, 2011 &… ) stress the three stages in teaching writing skill: a) controlled writing b) guided writing c) free writing.The controlled writing  emphasizesaccuracy rather than fluency. It focuses on the structural aspect of the language and neglects its communicative aspect. The guided writing concerns with the organization of the material which is given. (Verghase, 1989). Dickson (2001) introduces some prompts to be used  by the teacher or the textbook in guided writing such as pictures, proverbs, short stories and so on. These activities facilitate the act of writing for the students. Free writing means that the students write without any interference, and are encouraged to emphasize content and fluency first.When adopting this method, one should not feel concerned with grammar, punctuation, spelling or style. While free-writing the writer should not reread what s/he has already written. Rather, if stuck on what to write next, just continue to write anything that comes to mind or rewrite the last word until another idea comes to mind. According to Raimes’s (1983) study, for controlled writing students need the following components of writing: syntax, grammar, mechanics, and word choice. In contrast, free writing requires all of Raimes’s components of writing: syntax, grammar, mechanics, word choice, organization, content, the writer’s process, audience, and purpose.
The research method of this paper is descriptive-analytic. At first the writing tasks of Persian writing textbooks were accounted and they were classified according to the proposed taxonomy. The data has been analyzed by using (SPSS 20). Results from the codification of 386 tasks showed that the distribution of the items in the taxonomy is not the same. The majority of writing tasks in the writing textbooks (70, 46 %) has been allocated to controlled writing emphasizing on improving the language knowledge and basic lower-level writing activities. It shows that the product-approach is the dominant approach in Persian writing textbooks used at primary schools (4th, 5th and 6th grades). In addition, a significant difference was found between writing tasks of the textbooks in their inclusion of different levels of the taxonomy. It can also be said that as the students proceed to higher grades and their language knowledge and background knowledge develop, the level of writing task designing gets higher. The textbook designers should pay attention the balance between basic activities and higher-level ones in writing skill.
However, it is dangerous to rely on any single group of writing activities, because each of the three kinds of writing activities has its own function and plays an important role in developing students’ writing abilities. Not only grammatical learning for understanding language functions and usage but also activities such as guided writing incorporated into free composition will encourage students to write their own thoughts.
Therefore, writing instruction should aim to develop students’ practical communication abilities by proactively increasing the opportunities for free writing. However, because the analyzed textbooks included so few guided writing tasks and so many controlled writing tasks, it is better to be included enough guided writing tasks serving as a bridge to greater ability in free writing. The findings of this study can be used both by the textbook designers and teachers.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • writing
  • writing tasks
  • Persian writing textbooks
  • proposed taxonomy
حسنی‌‌‌آبیز، زهرا. (1388). ارزشیابی برنامه، کارکرد آموزگاران و دستاوردهای دانش‌‌‌‌آموزان پایه‌‌‌ی پنجم در درس نگارش از دیدگاه سازایی‌‌‌گرایی (پایان‌‌‌نامه‌‌‌ی کارشناسی ارشد)، دانشگاه الزهرا، تهران، ایران.

دانای‌‌‌طوس، مریم و کیامنش، علیرضا. (1388). رویکردهای نظری زیربنای تعریف سواد: شواهدی از برنامه‌‌‌ی درسی کشورهای آمریکا، کانادا، انگلستان، سنگاپور، سنگال، اندونزی و ایران. فصلنامه‌‌‌‌ی نوآوری‌‌های آموزشی، 31، صص:100-75.

دانشگر، مریم. (1396). مهارت‌‌‌های دانش‌‌‌آموختگان دوره‌‌‌ی متوسطه با محوریت درس زبان و ادبیات فارسی (مطالعه‌‌‌ی موردی شهر تهران). جستارهای زبانی، 8 (1)، صص: 256-231.

علوی‌‌مقدم، سیدبهنام و خیرآبادی، معصومه. (1391). تحلیل اشکالات نوشتاری دانش‌‌‌آموزان ایرانی غیر فارسی‌‌‌زبان. فصلنامه‌‌‌ی نوآوری‌‌های آموزشی، 43، صص: 59-43.

کاظمی، فروغ. (1393). تحلیل خطاهای دستوری فارسی‌‌‌آموزان لک‌زبان. جستارهای زبانی، 5 (2)، صص: 235-207.

متولیان‌نائینی، رضوان و ملکیان، رسول. (1393). تحلیل خطاهای نحوی فارسی‌‌‌آموزان اردوزبان. پژوهش‌‌‌‌‌‌نامه‌‌‌‌‌یآموزش زبان فارسی به غیرفارسی‌‌زبانان، شماره‌ی 1 (پیاپی 6)، صص: 64-31.

مطلق، عادله؛ خادمی، ملوک و دانشگر، مریم.(1398). بررسی آموزش نوشتن در کتاب‌‌‌های درسی آموزش زبان فارسی و نگارش دوره‌‌‌ی ابتدایی بر مبنای رویکرد فرآیندمحور و برنامه‌‌‌ی قصدشده.  فصلنامه‌‌‌‌ی زبان‌‌‌پژوهی، 11 (32)، صص: 48-27.

موسوی، سید ایمان؛ کیانی، غلامرضا؛ اکبری، رامین و غفارثمر، رضا. (1395). سیر تکاملی آگاهی از ژانر رشته‌‌‌ی تخصصی با آموزش مهارت‌‌‌های دانشگاهی: یک مطالعه‌‌ی موردی. جستارهای زبانی، 7 (3)، صص: 169-147.

زندی، بهمن. (1394). روش تدریس زبان فارسی در دوره‌‌‌ی دبستان. تهران: سمت.

نوریان، محمد.(1386). تحلیل محتوای کتاب‌‌های فارسی اول دبستان در ایران، فصلنامه‌‌‌ی روان‌‌شناسی تحولی، 3 (12)، صص:366-357.

 

 

References:

Alavi moghaddam, S. B. &Kheirabadi, M. ( 2012). Linguistic analysis of writing errors in non-Persian speaking Iranian students. Quarterly Journal of Educational Innovations,43, 43-59. [In Persian]

Anderson, C. (1992).Free/style: a direct approach to writing. Boston: Houghton.

Backingham, T. & Pech, W. C. (1976). An Experience Approach to Teaching Composition. TESOL Quarterly, 10 (2), 55-76.

Danaye Tusi, M. & Kiyamanesh, A. ( 2009).Theoretical approaches to the definition of literacy: evidence from thecurriculum 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]

Dickson, K. J. (2001).Free writing, Prompts and Feedback.The Internet TESL Journal, 7 (8), 1-10.

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.

Hartanti, D. (2011).Implementing  Guided  Writing To Improve Students’ Writing Skill InNarrative Text.Undergraduate Thesis, English Department, Sebelas Maret University.

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]

Hedge, T. (1988).Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hyland, K. (2003). Second Language Writing. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Irawati, L. (2015). Applying Cultural Project Based Learning to Develop Students ’ Academic

Writing.DINAMIKA ILMU, 15(1), 25–34.

Juriah,  J.  (2015).Implementing  Controlled  Composition  to  Improve  Vocabulary  Mastery  of

EFL Students.DINAMIKA ILMU, 15(1), 139–165.

Kazemi, F. (2014).Analysis of Grammatical Errors in Farsi Learners of Laki Speakers.

Language Related Research, 5 (2), 207-235. [In Persian]

Kellogg, R. (2008).Training writing skills: A cognitive developmental perspective. Journal of

Writing Research, 1(1), 1-26.

Kern, R. (2000). Literacy and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Motavalian Nayini, R. & Malekian, R. (2014). Analyzing the syntactic errors of Urdu-speaking

learners of Persian. Journal of Teaching Persian to Speakers of Other Languages, 1, 31-64.[InPersian]

Motlagh, A., Khademi, M.,& Daneshgar, M. (2019). Study of Writing Instruction in Reading and

Writing Textbooks of Primary School Based on the Process Approach and the Intended  Curriculum.Scientific journal of Language research, 11, (32), 27-48.[In Persian]

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]

Noorian, M. (2007).A cotent analysis of Iran’s first grade literature textbooks.Developmental Psychology,

     3 (12), 357-366. [InPersian]

Nunan, D. (2003).Practical English Language Teaching. International Edition, McGraw-Hill, Singapore, 88.

Raimes, A. (1983). Techniques in teaching writing. New York: Oxford University Press.

Silva, T. (1990).Second Language composition instruction: developments, issues and directions in ESL. In

    B. Kroll (ed.), Second Language Writing: Research insights for the classroom, 11-23. NewYork, NY:

Cambridge University Press.

Verghase ,C. P. ( 1989).Teaching English As A Second language. Okhla Industrial area, New Delhi: SterlingPublishers.

Zamel,  V. (1976).Teaching composition in the  ESL classroom: What we can learn from research inthe  teaching  of  English. TESOL Quarterly, 10, 1, 67-76.

Zandi, B. (2015).Persian language teaching method in primary schools. Tehran: SAMT. [In Persian]