A Comparative Content Analysis of Persian Junior High and High School Textbooks and EFL Writing Textbooks

مطالعات زبان و ترجمه

Article 2, Volume 50, Issue 4, February 2018, Pages 25-54   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/lts.v50i4.25091

Authors

Zhila Ghaemi; Reza Pishghadam^*

Department of English, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran

Abstract

1. Introduction
The importance of writing as a complex skill in applied linguistics has drawn the attention of many researchers to evaluating textbooks in order to help learners gain self-sufficiency and autonomy in the field of language use and communication. Investigations have shown that developments in textbook evaluation can promote the quality of pedagogies and consequently, the quality of learning. Silva and Matsuda (2002) support the idea that writing, as part of applied linguistics, is a way of communication. It is the product of creative, dynamic learning process that spirals naturally upward, and outward toward limitless possibilities, as it is fostered by examples over time (John-Steiner, 1985). It is clear that this complex skill requires support from a rich qualitative pedagogical curriculum based on a process-based approach, which involves students in planning, drafting, revising, and editing (Seow, 1995). Investigations have shown that developments in the textbook evaluation can increase the quality of learning (e.g., Richards & Renandya, 2002; Tompkins, 1990; Zamel, 1982). To simplify the complexity of the writing skill, the teachers' role is salient both as the interpreters of materials and as the one who teaches the principles of writing. According to Zamel (1982), many teachers usually do not evaluate student’s compositions based on the crucial principles of writing. Instead, they present writing as something which has always existed and needs to be developed by practice.
Therefore, careful attention to the quality of the content is particularly important. There seem to be problems in the content, the order of the lessons, and the teaching approach in Persian writing textbooks, compared to the ones used for teaching English writing.

2. Methodology
This study was set out as a qualitative one. It attempted to analyze, first, the content of junior high and high school Persian textbooks and the EFL writing textbooks currently being taught at universities. It compared them with each other following three directions, namely subject matter frequencies, subject matter order, and teaching approach to writing. In fact, the study was set out to answer two research questions: “How do Persian textbooks present writing skill?” and “How do EFL textbooks present writing skill?”.

3. Discussion
The results of this study showed that the percentage and frequency of subject matters and pedagogical points related to writing in Persian textbooks are high, yet limited to a form of 'short notice' at junior high school. Although the writing lessons in high school textbooks are in an expanded lesson frame, they are still in the form of definitions or outlines as if they are just for exam purpose or for memorization. This is in opposition to theories of cognitive and conceptual learning (Ausubel, 1963). The results of the second phase of this study presented information that indicated how logically the subjects related to writing were set and organized in EFL textbooks and if they were organized based on the capability of the learner. The results revealed that lessons in EFL textbooks such as 'Writing with confidence' (Meyers, 2006; 2009) follow a logical order. A comparative study between the two systems (Persian and EFL textbooks) showed that EFL writing textbooks were much more carefully organized and designed. The topics in these course books were ordered from easy to difficult in teaching writing. They were written according to an organized pedagogical syllabus, which met learners’ needs and ability. Actually, reminding learners of the principles of writing made the writing process more effective. In contrast to EFL writing textbooks, there was no logical continuity in the order of lessons in Persian textbooks. It seems that Persian textbooks do not follow a logical order to present the relevant subjects and as a result, the topics and their order do not fit the capability of students. The results of the third phase of the study revealed that EFL textbooks emanate process-based approach whereas Persian textbooks implement the product-based approach. All in all, comparing the course books revealed that Persian textbooks do not deal with principles of writing comprehensively.

4. Conclusion
The current study sought to compare EFL writing textbooks with Persian junior high and high school writing course books. The results revealed that there were differences in subject frequencies, the order of lessons presented, and the teaching approach. The results have implications for textbook writers. They can make modifications to the development of Persian textbooks. Reviewing the course books could lead to the students’ mastery of Persian written system as, among all factors that affect learning the writing skill, textbooks form one of the most important factors.
 
 

Keywords

Farsi Writing Skills; English Writing Skills; Subject Frequencies; Subject Order; Teaching Approach

References

اکبری شلدره‌ای، ف.، و همکاران (1388). فارسی سال دوم دورة راهنمایی. تهران: شرکت چاپ و نشر کتاب‌های فارسی ایران.

اکبری شلدره‌ای، ف.، و همکاران (1389). فارسی سال سوم دورة راهنمایی. تهران: شرکت چاپ و نشر کتاب‌های فارسی ایران.

پیش‌قدم، ر.، و مرادی‌مقدم، م. (1390). فرهنگ، کارتون و آموزش زبان انگلیسی: مطالعة کیفی کارتون «انگلیسی جادویی». مطالعات زبان و ترجمه، ۴۴(۲)، ۷۱-۹۱.

جوان‌بخت، م.، و همکاران. (۱۳۹۰). بررسی میزان انعکاس موضوعات کتابداری و اطلاع‌رسانی در کتاب‌های درسی دورة متوسطه و پیش‌دانشگاهی (شاخه نظری) در سال تحصیلی ۱۳۸۹. کتابداری و اطلاع‌رسانی، (53)، ۲۹۷-۳۱۸.

حق‌شناس، ع.، و همکاران. (1388). زبان فارسی سال دوم متوسطه. تهران: شرکت چاپ ونشر کتاب‌های فارسی ایران.

حق‌شناس، ع.، و همکاران. (1389). زبان فارسی سال سوم متوسطه. تهران: شرکت چاپ ونشر کتاب‌های فارسی ایران.

حق‌شناس، ع.، و همکاران. (1390). زبان فارسی سال اول متوسطه. تهران: شرکت چاپ ونشر کتاب‌های فارسی ایران.

سمیعی گیلانی، ا.، و همکاران (1384). فارسی سال اول دورة راهنمایی. تهران: شرکت چاپ و نشر کتاب‌های فارسی ایران.

عریضی، ح.، و عابدی، ا. (1382). تحلیل محتوای کتاب درسی دورة ابتدایی «بر حسب سازة انگیزة پیشرفت». فصلنامه نوآوری‌های آموزشی، ۲(۵)، ۲۹-۵۴.

نوریان، م. (1391). تحلیل محتوای کتاب‌های فارسی در ایران. روان‌شناسی تحولی: روانشناسان ایرانی. ۳(۱۲)، ۳۵۷-۳۶۶.

 

Arnaudet, M. L., & Barrett, M. E. (1990). Paragraph development: A guide for students of English. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Ausubel, D. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New York: Grune & Strattor.

Bailey, E. P., & Powell, P. A. (1989). The practical writer with readings (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.

Berzonsky, M. D. (2008). Identity formation: The role of identity processing style and cognitive processes. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 645-655.

Connor, U. (2002). New directions in contrastive rhetoric. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 493–510.

Cook, V. J. (2003). Effects of the second language on the first. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (1993). The power of literacy: A genre approach to teaching writing. Philadelphia, PA: 39 University of Pittsburg Press.

Elbow, P. (1981). Writing with power: Techniques for mastering the writing process (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Hashemian, M. (2011). The effect of L2 writing ability on L1 writing ability. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(6), 1306-1311.

John-Shteiner, V. (1985). Notebooks of the mind: Explorations of thinking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education. Language Learning, 16, 1–20.

Kaplan, R. B. (1988). Contrastive rhetoric and second language learning: Notes toward theory of contrastive rhetoric. In A. C. Purves (Ed.), Writing across languages and cultures (pp. 275-304). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publication.

Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York: Longman.

Kubota, R., & Lehner, A. (2004). Toward critical contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 7–27.

Liebman, J. A. (1988). Contrastive rhetoric: Students as ethnographers. Journal of Basic Writing, 7(2), 6-27.

Meyers, A. (2006). Composing with confidence: Writing effective paragraphs and essays (7th ed.). New York: Pearson Longman.

Meyers, A. (2009). Writing with confidence: Writing effective sentences and paragraphs (9th ed.). New York: Pearson Longman.

Mirahmadi, S. H. (2011). The effect of Iranian students' first language proficiency in writing. European Journal of Social Sciences, 24(2), 182-190.

Pishghadam, R., & Attaran, A. (2013). Rhetorical patterns of argumentation in EFL journals of Persian and English. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 2(1), 81-90.

Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (2002). Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Silva, T., & Matsuda, P. K. (2002). Writing. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), An introduction to applied linguistics (pp. 251-266). London: Oxford University Press.

Zamel, V. (1982). Writing: The process of discovering meaning. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 67-76.

Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to students' writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19(1), 79-101.

Zare-ee, A., & Taghifarvar, M. (2009). Comparison of university level EFL learners’ linguistic and retorical patterns as reflected in their L1 and writing. Novitas-ROYAL, 3(2), 143-155.