بررسی هم سویی کتاب جدید زبان انگلیسی، محتوای آموزش و پرسش‌های پایان ترم پایه هفتم دبیرستان

نویسندگان

• رضا رضوانی ¹
• زهرا میهن خواه ²
• بهناز حق شناس ³

¹ استادیار و عضو هیئت علمی دانشگاه یاسوج، دانشکده علوم انسانی، گروه زبان انگلیسی، یاسوج، ایران.

² دانشجوی کارشناسی ارشد آموزش زبان انگلیسی ، گروه آموزش زبان انگلیسی، واحد یاسوج، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، یاسوج، ایران.

³ کارشناسی ارشد آموزش زبان انگلیسی، دانشکده‌ی علوم انسانی، دانشگاه یاسوج، ایران.

چکیده

این پژوهش بمنظور ارزیابی مقدار هم سویی کتاب پراسپکت 1 (کتاب زبان انگلیسی پایه هفتم دبیرستان در ایران)، پرسش های پایان ترم، و محتوای آموزش انجام شد. جهت نیل به این مقصود، تنوع بعد شناختی و بعد دانش موجود در پرسش های پایان ترم، محتوای آموزش و کتاب درسی بر اساس هدف های آموزشی تجدید نظر شده بلوم (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001) بررسی شده است. در این راستا، چک لیست رضوانی و زمانی (1391) و پرسشنامه رضوانی و حق شناس (1393) که بر اساس هدف های آموزشی ذکر شده تنظیم شده اند، جهت مشخص کردن فراوانی، درصد فراوانی و سطوح تاکید شده مورد استفاده قرار گرفتند. دوازده نفر از دبیران این پایه که به گونه تصادفی انتخاب شده بودند، در این پژوهش شرکت کردند. شاخص هم سویی پرتر (2002) نیز جهت محاسبه مقدار هم سویی میان عناصر مورد مطالعه بکار گرفته شد. نتایج بدست آمده از این پژوهش نشان دادند که هدف های در نظر گرفته شده در هر سه جزء را سطوح پایینی (به­یاد آوردن، فهمیدن، و به کار بستن) طبقه­بندی هدف های آموزشی تشکیل می­دهند و سطوح بالایی طبقه بندی، درصد کم تری را به خود اختصاص داده­اند. نتایج محاسبه مقدار هم سویی میان کتاب درسی و محتوای آموزشی (74درصد)، کتاب درسی و پرسش های پایان ترم (76درصد) و محتوای آموزشی و پرسش های پایان ترم (75 درصد) نیز نشان دادند که این سه جزء از هم سویی قابل قبولی برخوردارند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

• کتاب درسی
• پرسش های پایان ترم
• طبقه بندی تجدید نظر شده بلوم
• شاخص هم سویی پرتر
• محتوای آموزش
• پراسپکت 1

20.1001.1.20086369.1395.7.27.10.3

---

عنوان مقاله [English]

An Alignment Study of English Achievement Tests, Contents of Instruction, and Iranian EFL Seventh Grade Textbook

نویسندگان [English]

• reza Rezvani ¹
• zahra Mihankhah ²
• behnaz Haghshenas ³

چکیده [English]

    The current research set out to analyze Prospect 1, the officially prescribed textbook for 7^th grade high school students in Iran, its relevant achievement tests, and contents of instruction. More specifically, the study sought to investigate the variation in cognitive domain and types of knowledge represented by the achievement tests, contents of instruction, and the textbook drawing on Bloom’ (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001) revised taxonomy of educational objectives. It further examined the alignment among the three curriculum components of interest. Research instruments included a checklist of educational objectives (Rezvani & Zamani, 2012) and a survey of contents of instruction (Rezvani & Haghshenas, 2014) both developed based on Bloom’s revised taxonomy (2001). English teachers, both male and female (n = 12), took part in the study. Porter`s (2002) alignment index was employed to compute the alignment among each pair of tests and textbook, contents of instruction and textbook, and contents of instruction and tests. The quantitative analysis of the collected data indicated that all three alignment indices of the curriculum component pairs were significantly adequate (I>0.50). The findings of the study also demonstrated that ‘Remember’ and ‘Understand’ were the most prevalent cognitive domains. The outcomes also suggested that higher order thinking skills were the least dominant ones. Efforts to incorporate activities and contents that would help develop learners` higher order skills by the authors and teachers of the book as the main source of educational activities are recommended.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

• Alignment Study
• textbook drawing on Bloom
• Prospect 1

مراجع

- Abderahman, M.S. (2014). An Analysis of the Tenth Grade English Language Textbooks Questions in Jordan Based on the Revised Edition of Bloom`s Taxonomy. Journal of Education and Practice. 5, 18, 139-151.

- Amin, A. (2004). Learning objectives in university Persian & English general language courses in terms of Bloom’s taxonomy. M. A. Thesis, Unpublished. Shiraz University.

- Anderson, L.W., & Krathwohl, D.R. (2001). Taxonomy of Leading, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom`s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Longman.

- Anthony, B. A. (2007). Making students` writing bloom: The Effect of scaffolding oral inquiry using Bloom`s taxonomy on writing in response to reading and reading comprehension of fifth graders. Ph. D.  Thesis, Unpublished. Auburn University.

- Ari, A. (2011). Finding Acceptance of Bloom`s Revised  Cognitive Taxonomy on the International Stage and in Turkey. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice. 1, 2, 767 – 772.

- Assaly, I.R. & Smadi, O. M. (2015). Using Bloom`s Taxonomy to Evaluate the Cognitive Levels of Master Class Textbook`s Questions. English Language Teaching. 8, 5, 100-110.

- Biggs, J. B. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham: The Open University Press.

- Burger, J. M., Cooper, H. M., & Good, T. L. (1982). Teacher attributions of student performance: Effects and outcome. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 8, 685 690.

- Chyung, S.Y., & Stepich, D. (2003). Applying the “congruence” principles of Bloom`s Taxonomy to designing online instruction. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education. 4,1, 317 – 330.

- Cross, G., & Wills, K., (2001). Using Bloom to bridge the WAC/WID divide. Retrieved from  http://eric.ed.gov.

- Gegen, S.E. (2006). The Effects of Higher – level questioning in a high school mathematics classroom. M. A. Thesis, Unpuublished. Wichita State University.

- Gordani,Y. (2008). A content analysis of guidance school English textbooks with regard to Bloom’s levels of learning. M. A. Thesis, Unpublished. Shiraz University.

- Granello, D.H. (2000). Encouraging the Cognitive development of supervisees: Using Bloom`s taxonomy in supervision. Counselor Education & Supervision. 40, 1, 31-46.

- Hanna, W. (2007).The new Bloom`s taxonomy: Implications of music education. Arts Education Policy Review. 108, 4, 7 – 16.

- Herman, J. L.,Webb, N.M., & Zuniga, S.A. (2007). Alignment and college admissions: The match of expectations, assessments, and educator perspectives. Los Angeles: University of California.

- Igbaria, A. (2013).A Content analysis of the WH – questions in the TEFL textbook of Horizons. International Educational Studies 6, 7, 200 – 224.

- Khorsand, N. (2009).Cognitive Levels of Questions Used by Iranian EFL Teachers in Advanced Reading Comprehension Tests. M. A. Thesis, Unpublished. Shiraz University.

- La Marca, P. M. (2001). Alignment of standards and assessment as an accountability criterion.  Practical  Assessment, Research & Evaluation. 7, 21, 185-197.

- La Marca, P. M., Redfield, D., Winter,P., Bailey, A., & Despriet, L. (2000). State standards and state assessment system: A guide to alignment. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.

- Lashway, L. (1999). Holding schools accountable for achievement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.434381).

- Mosallanejad, N. (2008). Evaluation of high school English textbooks on the bases of Bloom’s  taxonomy.  M. A. Thesis, Unpublished. Shiraz University.

- Porter,A. C.,& Smithson, J., L. (2001a). Are content standards being implemented in the classroom? A methodology and some tentative answers. In S.H. Fuhrman (Eds.), From the capital of classroom:  Standards – based reform in the states, Part II (pp. 60 – 80). National Society for the study of Education. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

- Porter, A. C., & Smithson, J., L. (2001b). Defining, developing, and using curriculum indicators. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania.

- Porter, A.C. (2002). Measuring the content of instruction: Uses of research and practice. Educational Researcher. 31,7, 3 – 14.

- Razmjoo, A., & Kazempourfard, E. (2010). On the presentation of Bloom`s Revised Taxonomy in Interchange Course books. The Journal of teaching Language Skills. 4, 1, 171 – 204.

- Rezvani, R., & Zamani, G. (2012). An investigation into the alignment of M.A. university entrance exams, official textbooks and standards in terms of Anderson and Krathwohl taxonomy of educational objectives. Journal of educational management. 11,3, 1-12.

- Rezvani, R., & Haghshenas, B. (2014). Evaluating Curriculum alignment of English for Specific Purposes Bachelor of Arts Textbooks and the Relevant Official Curriculum Standards. Journal of educational management. 20, 5, 95-110.

- Shahedi, S. (2001).Constructing an analytical framework for the analysis of persian language tests for foreign learners. M. A.  Thesis, Unpublished. Shiraz University.

- Webb, N. L. (1997). Criteria for alignment of expectations and assessment in mathematics and science education. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.