ارزیابی کتاب آموزش زبان انگلیسی پایة اول دورة متوسطة اول: پراسپکت یک

نوع مقاله: علمی- پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشیار گروه زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه بوعلی سینا همدان

2 دانشجوی کارشناسی ‌ارشد، آموزش ‌زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه بوعلی ‌سینا، همدان

3 دانشجوی ‌کارشناسی‌ ارشد، آموزش ‌زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه بوعلی‌ سینا، همدان

4 دانشجوی کارشناسی‌ ارشد، آموزش ‌زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه بوعلی‌ سینا، همدان

5 دانشجوی‌ کارشناسی ‌ارشد، آموزش‌ زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه ‌بوعلی‌ سینا، همدان

چکیده

هدف تحقیق حاضر ارزیابی کتاب آموزش زبان انگلیسی پایة اول دورة متوسطة اول (هفتم)، پراسپکت یک، است که در سالهای اخیر توسط وزارت آموزش و پرورش ایران طراحی و مورداستفاده قرار گرفته است. بدین منظور، پرسشنامهای محقق‌ساخته طراحی شد و براساس اطلاعات حاصل از اجرای آزمایشی، روایی، و پایایی پرسشنامه با استفاده از تحلیل عاملی اکتشافی و آزمون آلفای کرانباخ موردتأیید قرار گرفت. نتایج شاخص کفایت نمونه، تست بارتلت، و نیز آلفای کرانباخ (96/0) حاکی از آن بود که پرسشنامة مذکور روایی مناسب و پایایی بالایی دارد. شرکتکنندگان اصلی این پژوهش شامل 188 معلم زبان انگلیسی در دورة اول متوسطهبودند که براساس نمونهگیری دردسترس از هفت استان کشور انتخاب شدند. همچنین 146 نفر از معلمان مورد مصاحبهای نیمهساختاریافته قرار گرفتند. نتایج پژوهش حاکی از آن بود که معلمان از: الف) طرح و قالب ظاهری کتاب، ب) فعالیتها و تمرین‌‌‌‌های کتاب، ج) محتوای کتاب بهلحاظ ایجاد توازن میان چهار مهارت زبانی، د) عملکرد مطالب کمک درسی و راهنمای معلم، ه) دستور زبان، واژگان، و انواع نقشهای زبانی و بالاخره، و) ارائة روش تدریس مناسب رضایت لازم را ندارند.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

First Grade High School English Text Book Evaluation: Prospect I

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mohammad Ahmadi Safa 1
  • Shadi Donyaee 2
  • Shilan Sohrabi 3
  • Mojtaba Farahani 4
  • Dayan Khasemi 5
  • Elahe Saeedpanah 2
1 Associate Professor in TEFL, Bu Ali Sina University, Hamedan
2 MA Student in TEFL, Bu Ali Sina University, Hamedan
3 MAStudent in TEFL, Bu Ali Sina University, Hamedan
4 MA Student in TEFL, Bu Ali Sina University, Hamedan
5 MA Student in TEFL, Bu Ali Sina University, Hamedan
چکیده [English]

This study set out to evaluate a rather newly developed textbook entitled "Prospect I". The textbook is developed as the main text for the nationwide application at the first grade of high school English courses by the Iranian ministry of education. To this end, a researcher-made questionnaire was developed and pilot tested.  Bartlett's test of Sphericity, Keiser-Meyer-Olkin sampling adequacy measure, exploratory factor analysis and factor loadings, and Cronbach's Alpha measure of internal consistency were all run on the pilot study data, and the results verified acceptable levels of validity and reliability for the questionnaire. The validated questionnaire was given to 188 high school English teachers chosen based on convenience sampling procedure from seven provinces of the country. Moreover, 146 teachers sat for a semi-structured interview. The questionnaire and interview  data analyses results revealed that the participating teachers were not satisfied with several aspects of the text including layout and design, the exercises and activities, the integration of the four skills, teachers  book, grammar, vocabulary, language functions, and the proposed teaching methodology of the text.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Textbook Evaluation
  • Prospect I
  • EFL teachers
  • Iran
Ahmadi, A. and A. Derakhshan (2014), The Strengths and Weaknesses of the Iranian Junior High School English Textbook ʻProspect 1ʼ from ʻteachers’ Perceptions, International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, vol. 7, no.4.

Allwright, R. L. (1981), What do We Want Teaching Materials for?, ELT Journal, vol. 36, no. 1.

Bemani, M. and A. Jahangard (2014), Attitude Analysis of Teachers: the Case of Iranian Newly Development EFL Textbook for Junior High Schools, International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, vol. 7, no. 1.

Byrd, P. (2001), Textbooks: Evaluation for Selection and Analysis for Implementation, Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language, vol. 3.

Cunningsworth, A. (1995)Choosing your Coursebook: Choosing your Coursebook, Macmillan: Heinemann.

Daoud, A. M. and M. Celce-Murcia (1979), “Selecting and Evaluating a Textbook”, in: M. Celce-Murcia and I. McIntosh (eds.), Teaching English as a Second or ForeignLanguage, New York: Newbury House.

De Lima Botelho, M. D. R. (2003)Multiple Intelligences Theory in English Language Teachingan Analysis of Current Textbooks, Materials and Teachers’perceptions, Doctoral Dissertation, Ohio University.

Dörnyei, Z. (2007)Research Methods in Applied Linguistics: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methodologies, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gardner, H. (1993)Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in Practice, New York: Basic Books.

Itakura, H. and A. B. Tsui (2011), Evaluation in Academic Discourse: Managing Criticism in Japanese and English Book ReviewsJournal of Pragmatics, vol. 43, no. 5.

Janfeshan, K. and M. Nosrati (2014),A Quick Look to English Language Training in Iranian Guidance Schools Through ʻProspectʼ Method and CLT with a Book Analytic Approach, International Journal of Economy, Management, and Social Sciences, vol. 3, no. 1.

Khansir, A. and E. Mohammadifard (2015), “An Evaluation of Prospect Book (Prospect 1), Theory and Practice in Language Studies, vol. 5, no. 3.

Kia-Ahmadi, E. and A. Arabmofrad (2015), An Evaluation Study on the 1st-Grade Junior High Schools’ English Textbook in the Light of Multiple Intelligence Theory, World Journal of English Language, vol. 5, no. 1.

Littlejohn, A. (1998), The Analysis of Language Teaching Materials: Inside the TrojanHorse, in: Materials Development in Language Teaching, Cambridge: Cambridge.

Litz, D. R. (2005), Textbook Evaluation and ELT Management: A South Korean Casestudy, Asian EFL Journal, vol. 48.

Mahfoodh, M. I. H. A. and S. G. Bhanegaonkar (2013), New Approach for Evaluating EFLM (an Eclectic Developed Checklist)International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, vol. 3, no. 10.

Mason, J. (2010), The Effects of Different Types of Materials on the Intercultural Competence of Tunisian University Students, in: B. Tomlinson and H. Masuhara (eds.), Research for Materials Development in Language Learning: Evidence for Best Practice, BloomsburyPublishing.

McDonough, J. and C. Shaw (2003), Materials and Methods in ELT: A Teacher's Guide, London: Blackwell.

McGrath, I. (2002), Materials Evaluation and Design for Language Teaching, Edinburgh University Press.

Miekley, J. (2005), Esl Textbook Evaluation ChecklistThe Reading Matrix, vol. 5, no. 2.

Mukundan, J., V. Nimehchisalem, and R. Hajimohammadi (2011), Developing an English Language Textbook Evaluation Checklist: A Focus Group Study, International Journal ofHumanities and Social Science, vol. 1, no. 12.

Nikou, F. R. and F. Soleimani (2012), The Manifestation of Culture in Iranian and Turkish high School English TextbooksAcademic Research International, vol. 2, no. 3.

Otlowski, M. (2003), “Ethnic Diversity and Gender Bias in EFL Textbooks, Asian EFL Journal,vol. 5, no. 2.

Pishghadam, R. and E. Naji Meidani (2012), Applied ELT as a Panacea for Linguistic Imperialism, Iranian EFL Journal, vol. 8.

Razmjoo, S. A. (2007), High Schools or Private Institutes' Textbooks? Which Fulfill Communicative Language Teaching Principles in the Iranian Context, Asian EFLJournal, vol. 9, no. 4.

Richards, J. C. (2001), The Role of Textbooks in a Language ProgramCambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Sharabian, S. et al. (2013), English for Schools: Prospect 1, Tehran: Iran'sSchool Book.

Sheldon, L. E. (1988), Evaluating ELT Textbooks and MaterialsELT Journal, vol. 42, no. 4.

Tomlinson, B. (2012), Materials Development for Language Learning and Teaching, Language Teaching, vol. 45, no. 2.

Tomlinson, B. (ed.) (2003), Developing Materials for Language Teaching, London: A&C Black.

Tucker, C. A. (1975), “Evaluating Beginning Textbooks, English Teaching Forum, vol. 13, no. 3.

Ur, P. (1996),A Course in Language Teaching: Practice and Theory, Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Williams, D. (1983), “Developing Criteria for Textbook Evaluation”, ELT Journal, vol. 37, no. 3.