اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 20 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 348 |
| تعداد مقالات | 2,871 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 3,264,189 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 2,398,781 |
تحلیل پرسشهای خواندن و درک‌مطلب کتابهای فارسی دورهی دوم ابتدایی براساس طبقهبندی بَرِت (1976) | ||
| پژوهش نامه آموزش زبان فارسی به غیر فارسی زبانان | ||
| مقاله 6، دوره 8، شماره 2 - شماره پیاپی 18، مهر 1398، صفحه 69-92 اصل مقاله (582.61 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30479/jtpsol.2019.10611.1435 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| عبدالحسین حیدری* 1؛ سید محمد سیدکلان2 | ||
| 1استادیار دانشگاه فرهنگیان | ||
| 2مدرس گروه آموزش ابتدایی، دانشگاه فرهنگیان | ||
| تاریخ دریافت: 16 اردیبهشت 1398، تاریخ بازنگری: 15 شهریور 1398، تاریخ پذیرش: 17 مهر 1398 | ||
| چکیده | ||
| پژوهش حاضر با هدف تحلیل پرسشهای خواندن و درک‌مطلب کتابهای فارسی دورهی دوم ابتدایی بر اساس طبقهبندی بَرِت انجام یافته است. این تحقیق از نوع توصیفی- تحلیلی است؛ چراکه ابتدا پرسشهای خواندن و درک‌مطلب کتابهای مورد نظر شمارش شد (394 پرسش) و بر اساس پنج سطح و 27 زیرمقوله‌‌ی مختلف طبقهبندی بَرِت، دسته‌‌بندی شد. سپس پراکندگی پرسشها در سطوح مختلف طبقهبندی خواندن و درک مفاهیم، مورد تحلیل قرار گرفت. نتایج کدگذاری 394 پرسش نشان داد که توزیع پرسشهای کتابهای درسی در پنج سطح طبقهبندی بَرِت یکسان نبوده است. سطح بیانی، سطح غالب یافته‌‌های تحقیق حاضر را به خود اختصاص داده است. فراوانی بالای پرسشهای کتابهای فارسی هر سه پایهی تحصیلی دورهی دوم ابتدایی در سطح بیانی، نشان‌دهنده‌‌ی آن است که اکثریت پرسشها (10،64 درصد) در پایین‌‌ترین سطح درک‌مطلب قرار گرفته‌‌اند. علاوه بر این نتایج تحلیل آماری (آزمون خی دو و آزمون ویکرامر) داده‌‌ها نشان داد که بین پرسشهای درک‌مطلب کتابهای فارسی سه پایهی دورهی دوم ابتدایی تفاوت معناداری وجود دارد (۰5،0=p) و با ارتقا دانشآموزان به پایهی بالاتر و افزایش رشد شناختی و زبانی آن‌‌‌‌‌‌‌ها، سطح طراحی پرسشهای درک‌مطلب نیز بالاتر رفته است. یافته‌‌‌ها و نتایج این تحقیق می‌‌تواند در حوزه‌‌ی تألیف کتابهای درسی (طراحی پرسشها) و حوزه‌‌ی تدریس (تمرین پرسشها در کلاس) مورد استفاده قرار گیرد و به تحقق اهداف فرایند یاددهی-یادگیری مهارت خواندن و درک مفاهیم کمک نماید. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| خواندن؛ پرسشهای درک‌مطلب؛ کتابهای فارسی؛ طبقهبندی بَرِت | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Analyzing the Post-Reading Questions of Primary School Persian Textbooks in Terms of Barrett’s Taxonomy | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Abdolhossein Heydari1؛ Seyyed Mohammad Seyyed Kalan2 | ||
| 1Corresponding author, Assistant Professor, Department of Language and Literature, Farhangian University, Iran. | ||
| 2Department of Primary School Teacher Training, Farhangian University, Ardabi, Iran. | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| This paper attempted to study the post-reading questions of Persian textbooks used at primary schools (4th, 5th and 6th grades) in terms of Barrett’s taxonomy. The research method was descriptive-analytic. At first, the post-reading questions of the textbooks were counted (394) and they were classified into 5 levels and 27 sub-categories of Barrett’s taxonomy. Then, the distribution of questions at different levels of the reading taxonomy was explored. Results from the codification of the 394 questions showed that the questions were not evenly distributed among the five levels of the taxonomy. The majority of the questions were of the recall type. High frequency of recall questions in the 4th, 5th, and 6th grade books showed that majority of the questions (64.10%) dealt with lowest level of reading skill. In addition, a significant difference was found between the post-reading questions of the textbooks in their inclusion of different levels of reading skill. That is, as the students proceeded to higher grades and their cognition and language competence developed, the level of questions became higher. The findings of this study can be used as a guide to textbook designers (in writing questions) and teachers (in answering questions) to modify their materials and practice to achieve the teaching-learning objectives of the reading skill. Extended Abstract This paper attempted to study the post-reading questions of Persian textbooks used at primary schools (4th, 5th and 6th grades) in terms of Barrett taxonomy. It is crucial to investigate what kind of cognitive skills are expected to be used in the post-reading questions of the present textbooks. Barrett’s taxonomy categorizes reading comprehension skills into five levels of comprehension. They are presented in the hierarchy from the lowest to the highest level of reading including literal, reorganization, inference, evaluation, and appreciation. The Barrett’s taxonomy was originally designed to assist classroom teachers in developing comprehension questions and test questions for reading. It is especially useful for classroom questioning in other content areas as well. The first two categories, literal comprehension and reorganization, deal with the facts as presented directly in the books the students have read, and thus result in closed questions that have a single correct response. Literal comprehension focuses on ideas and information which are explicitly stated in the selection. Purposes for reading and teacher’s questions designed to elicit responses at this level may range from simple to complex. Reorganization requires the student to analyze, synthesize, and organize ideas or information clearly stated in the passage. The remaining categories will always involve the student’s own background of experience. As a result, it is possible to have as many different, but correct, responses as there are students present, since each brings to school a different background of home, family, friends, and learning. These categories therefore lead to the development of open-ended questions. Inferential comprehension is stimulated by purposes for reading and teachers’ questions which demand thinking and imagination that go beyond the printed page. Personal experience is interpreted to include formal learning experiences, as well as those things which the reader has personally experienced in a first hand situation. Prior knowledge, regardless of where this knowledge came from, is an integral part of inference. The crucial factor distinguishing inference questions from recognition and recall questions is that their answers are not explicitly stated but must be inferred. Purposes for reading and teacher’s questions, in evaluation, require responses by the student which indicate that he or she has made an evaluative judgment by comparing ideas presented in the selection with external criteria provided by the teacher, other authorities, or other written sources, or with internal criteria provided by the reader’s experiences, knowledge, or values. Evaluation deals with judgment and focuses on qualities of accuracy, acceptability, desirability, worth, or probability of occurrence. Appreciation involves all the previously cited cognitive dimensions of reading, for it deals with the psychological and aesthetic impact of the selection on the reader. Appreciation calls for the student to be emotionally and aesthetically sensitive to the work and to have a reaction to the worth of its psychological and artistic elements. Appreciation includes both the knowledge of and the emotional response to literary techniques, forms, styles, and structures. The research method of this paper was descriptive-analytic. At first the post-reading questions of the textbooks were counted and they were classified according to Barrett’s taxonomy. Then the data were analyzed considering their distribution at different levels of the reading taxonomy. Results from the codification of questions showed that the majority of the items concentrated on the first level of Barrett’s taxonomy which is referred to as the lower level of reading skill. In addition, a significant difference was found between the post-reading questions of the textbooks in their inclusion of different levels of reading skill. That is, as the students proceeded to higher grades and their cognition and language competence developed, the level of questions became higher. The findings of this study can be used as a guide to textbook designers and teachers to modify their materials and practice to achieve the teaching-learning objectives of the reading skill. Therefore, it is important for teachers to realize that they should carefully analyze the questions in a textbook and evaluate for themselves whether or not they deem the questions to be adequate or appropriate for their students, and not just to blindly accept and use the questions given in textbooks. If the questions in textbooks are not adequate, teachers need to prepare other questions by themselves. To promote student cognitive skills, it is necessary to build teacher’s competence for making appropriate cognitive questions. A mixture of questions at various levels of the taxonomy might result in effective learning at higher and lower levels of thinking skills. The advantage of having textbooks with mixed questions (questions at all levels) is that low ability students perform better on knowledge recall questions and high ability students perform better on inference, evaluation, and appreciation level questions. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| reading, post-reading questions, Persian books, Barrett’s taxonomy | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
تقیان، حسن، خدایی، ابراهیم، بازرگان، عباس، مقدم‌‌‌زاده، علی و کبیری، مسعود. (1397). ساخت آزمون خواندن برای دانشآموزان ششم ابتدایی با استفاده از انگارهی سنجش شناختی تشخیصی. پژوهشنامهی آموزش زبان فارسی به غیرفارسی‌‌زبانان،1(پیاپی 15)، صص:30-1. زندی، بهمن. (1394). روش تدریس زبان فارسی در دورهی دبستان. تهران: سمت. مرعشی، سیدمنصور، هاشمی، سید جلال و مقیمی‌گسک، اعظم. (1391). تحلیل محتوای کتابهای درسی بخوانیم و بنویسیم و هدیه‌‌های آسمانی دورهی ابتدایی بر اساس برنامهی درسی فلسفه برای کودکان. تفکر و کودک، پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی، 3 (1)، صص: 89- 69. نوریان، محمد. (1386). تحلیل محتوای کتابهای فارسی اول دبستان در ایران، فصلنامه روان‌‌شناسی تحولی، سال سوم، ش،12، صص: 366-357.
References: Anderson, L., Krathwohl, D., Airasian, P., Cruikshank, K., Mayer, R., Pintrich, P., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. (Abridged edition). New York: Addison Wesley Longman. Aryati, P. (2007). An analysis of reading questions in English for junior high school students in Surakarta.M A, Malang: Malang university. Baker, L., & Beall, L. (2009 ). Metacognitive processes and reading comprehension.In S.E. Israel, & G.G.Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (373-388). New York: Routledge. Barrett, T. C. (1976). Taxonomy of reading comprehension. In Teaching reading in the middle grades. Eds. R. Smith and T. C. Barrett. Reading. MA: Addison-Wesley. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. New York: David MC Kay Company, Inc. Cook, G. (1997). Key Concepts in ELT: Schemas. ELT Journal, 51 (1): 28-40. Gordani, Y. (2010). An Analysis of English Textbooks Used at Iranian Guidance Schools in Terms of Bloom’s Taxonomy.The Journal of Asia TEFL, 7(2), 249-278. Gunning, T. G. (2000). Creating Literacy Instruction for All Children. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Hirai, S. (2014). A Study of language education based on the theories of bilingualism: the effectiveness of CALP-oriented teaching methodologies.Report on study 23520699 Grants-in Aid for Scientific Research C. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS). Jamieson, J., Jones, S., Kirsch, I., Mosenthal, P., & Taylor, C. (2000). TOEFL 2000Framework: A Working Paper (TOEFL monograph No. 16). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing system. Marashi, S., Hashemi, S., & Moghimi Gasak., A. (2013) .Reading and Writing and Divine Gifts: Do the Textbooks Contain Features of Philosophy for Children Program?Thinking & Child,3 (1), 69-89. [InPersian] Muayanah, M. (2014) .Reading comprehension questions developed by English teachers of senior high schools in Surabaya.Jurnal Sosial Humaniora, 7 (1), 20-44. Morgan, N. & J. Saxon. (1994). Asking Better Questions. Markham, ON: Pembroke. Noorian, M. (2007). A cotent analysis of Iran’s first gradeliterature textbooks.Developmental Psychology,3(12), 357-366. [InPersian] Nuttal, C. (1998). Teaching Reading Skills in a Foreign Language. Oxford: Heinemann. Scarborough, H. S. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice. In S.B. Neuman & D.K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 97 -110). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Sunggingwati, D. (2001). Reading Questions of Junior High School English Textbooks. MA: Malang: Graduate Program of Malang University. Swaby, B. E. R. (1984). Teaching and Learning Reading: A Pragmatic Approach. Boston, M A: Little Brown. Taghiyan, H., Khodayee, E., Bazergan, A., Moghaddamzadeh, A., & Kabiri, M. (2018). Developing a Reading Test for Sixth Grade Students Using Cognitive Diagnostic Assessment Model.Journal of TeachingPersian to Speakers of Other Languages, 7 (1), 3-30. [In Persian] Umalusi. (2010). Maintaining Standards Report (Accounting, Business Studies, Economics, History,) Overview. S. Grussendorff. Pretoria: Umalusi. Widdowson, H. G. (1993). Learning Purpose and Language Use. London: Oxford University Press. Zandi, B. (2015). Persian language teaching method in primary schools.Tehran: SAMT. [In Persian]
| ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 503 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 530 |
||