طراحی الگوی برنامه درسی آموزش زبان خارجی عمومی در نظام آموزش عالی کشور

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری برنامه‌ریزی درسی در آموزش عالی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران

2 دانشیار برنامه‌ریزی درسی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران

3 استاد برنامه‌ریزی درسی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران

چکیده

مطالعه حاضر در صدد است تا ضمن بررسی عناصر تشکیل دهنده‌ی برنامه درسی آموزش زبان خارجی عمومی، به معرفی مولفه‌ها و مقوله‌های اصلی تشکیل دهنده‌ی این حوزه در کشور بپردازد و نهایتا الگویی مطلوب، مطابق با بافت کشور ایران ارائه دهد. روش انجام این مطالعه از نوع کیفی با استفاده از روش داده بنیاد است. برای جمع‌آوری داده‌ها، با هدف جمع‌آوری و تدوین مقوله‌های الگو، 21 مصاحبه‌ی نیمه ساختارمند با خبرگان، صاحبنظران و اساتید حوزه آموزش زبان‌های خارجی انجام شد. سپس، الگوی ارائه شده با استفاده از روش چک کردن اعضا مورد اعتبارسنجی واقع شد. نتایج این تحقیق به شکل الگویی متشکل از 11 مقوله اصلی شامل عوامل علّی(برنامه‌ریزی عملکرد محور)، زمینه‌ای(زمینه گرایی سیاسی-اقتصادی و زمینه گرایی فرهنگی)، مداخله‌گر(ویژگی‌های مدرس و فراگیر)، راهبردها(اولیه، آموزشی و بازخوردی) و پیامدها( ارتقاء سطح آموزش زبان خارجی کشور و ایجاد برنامه‌درسی پایدار) ارائه شد. همچنین برنامه‌ریزی چندگانه تخصص محور نیز به عنوان مقوله محوری الگو یافته شد. در پایان نیز بر مبنای یافته‌ها و نتایج کسب شده، پیشنهادهایی در جهت عملی شدن الگوی ارائه شده، مطرح شد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Designing a model for General Foreign Language Curriculum at Higher Education Level

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mohsen Chenari 1
  • Mahboubeh Arefi 2
  • Kourosh Fathi Vajargah 3
1 PhD Student in Curriculum Planning in Higher Education, Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
2 Associate Professor of Curriculum Planning, Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
3 Professor of Curriculum Planning, Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

The present study aims to explore the elements of general foreign language curriculum in addition to introducing main factors and categories composing it in Iran and eventually to present a comprehensive model according to the context of Iran. This is a qualitative study using grounded theory method. In order to collect data with the purpose of finding the categories of the model, 21 semi-structured interviews with specialists and professors of the area of foreign language education were conducted. These specialist were selected based on snowball sampling.Then, the model was accredited using members checking method. The results of were presented in the form of a model consisted of 11 main categories including causative factors (practice-based planning), background (political-economical context and cultural context), interfering (teacher and learner characteristics), strategies (primary, educational and feedback), and outcomes (improving the level of foreign language education in the country and forming a sustainable curriculum). Also, multiple specialist-based planning was considered as core category in this study. Based on the findings, some recommendations were presented at the end of the study.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • model
  • curriculum
  • foreign language teaching
  • higher education
ادیب حاج‌باقری، محسن.، پرویزی، سرور و صلصالی،مهوش(1389). روش‌های تحقیق کیفی. تهران: بشری با همکاری تحفه.
استراس، آنسلم و کوربین، جولیت(1390). اصول روش تحقیق کیفی: نظریه مبنایی، رویه ها و روش ها. مترجم محمدی، بیوک، تهران: پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی.
حقانی, ‌نادر(1386). بازی های یادگیری زبان: سرگرمی زبان آموزان یا پیشبرد فرایند آموزش، مجله رشد آموزش زبان، 81(21): 4-9.‎
صفرنواده، خدیجه(1390). ارائه الگوی برنامه درسی زبان انگلیسی دوره متوسطه بر اساس اصول و ویژگی‌های  رویکرد آموزش ارتباطی زبان. پایان‌نامه دکتری، دانشگاه خوارزمی-تهران.
عابدی، حیدرعلی(1385). تحقیقات کیفی، فصلنامه حوزه و دانشگاه، 47(12): 79-62
Abedi, H. A. (2006). Qualitative Researches. Houzeh & Daneshgah. 47(12): 62-79. (Text in Persian).
Adib Haj Bagheri, M. Parvizi, S., & Salsali, M. (2010). Qualitative Research Methods. Tehran: Boshra in collaboration with Tohfeh. (Text in Persian).
Aghagolzadeh, F. & H. Davari. (2014). Iranian Critical ELT: A Belated but Growing Intellectual Shift in Iranian ELT Community. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies. 12 (1).
Angell, J., DuBravac, S., & Gonglewski, M. (2008). Thinking Globally, Acting Locally: Selecting Textbooks for College-Level Language Programs. Foreign Language Annals.41(3)
Annoussamy, D. (2006). Psychological aspects of language acquisition. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology. 32(2): 84-92.
Balla, E. (2017). Teacher and His/Her Role in Teaching English. Journal of Educational and Social Research. 7(2): 49-53.
Benson, (2007), Autonomy in language teaching and learning. Cambridge University Press.
Borg, S. (2015). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice, Bloomsbury Publishing.
Borjian, M. (2013). English in post-revolutionary Iran: From indigenization to internationalization (Vol. 29). Multilingual Matters.
Briggs, M. (2014). Second Language Teaching and Learning: the Roles of Teachers, Students, and the Classroom EnvironmentUnited States: Utah State University 
Brown, J. D. (1995). The elements of language curriculum: A systematic ap-proach to program development. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Farhady, H., Sajadi Hezaveh, F., & Hedayati, H. (2010). Reflections on Foreign Language Education in Iran. TESL-EJ. 13(4): 1-18.
Freeman, D. (2002). The hidden side of the work: Teacher knowledge and learning to teach. A perspective from North American educational research on teacher education in English language teaching. Language teaching. 35(1): 1-13.
Fries, C. (1945), Teaching and Learning English as a Foreign language. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Garton, S. (2008). Teacher beliefs and interaction in the language classroom. In Professional Encounters in TESOL(pp. 67-86). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Haghani, N. (2007). Language Learning Games: Amusing language learners or enhancing the process of teaching. Roshd. 81(21): 4-9. (Text in Persian).
Jinzhu, Z. (2018). Needs analysis research of English teaching and learning in China: A literature review and implication. British Journal of Education. 6(3): 30-40.
Johnson, R. K. (Ed.). (1989), The second language curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kiany, G. R., Momenian, M., & Navidinia, H. (2011). Revisiting the approach of national curriculum towards foreign language education. Language related research. 2(2): 0-0.
Krashen, S. D. (1985), Inquiries & insights: second language teaching: immersion & bilingual education, literacy. Hayward: Alemany Press.
Lamie, J. M. (2004). Presenting a model of change. Language Teaching Research. 8(2): 115-142
Lantolf, J. P. (1996). SLA theory building:” Letting all the flowers bloom!”. Language Learning. 46(4): 713-749.
Long, M. H. (1980). Inside the “black box”: Methodological issues in classroom research on language learning. Language Learning. 30(1): 1-42.
Mc Cay, S. (2012). English as an international language: A time for a change. Routledge.
Mirhosseini, S., & Khodakarami, S. (2015). A glimpse of contrasting de jure–de facto ELT policies in Iran. British Council.
Mushtaq, M. (2012). The Role of Curriculum Scholars in Current Curriculum Debates. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences. 2(9): 87.
Office for Standards in Education. (2008). Curriculum Innovation in Schools. London: Ofsted Availible online at: https://online.ofsted.gov.uk/onlineofsted/Ofsted_Online.ofml
Ogilvie, G., & Dunn, W. (2010). Taking teacher education to task: Exploring the role of teacher education in promoting the utilization of task-based language teaching. Language Teaching Research. 14(2): 161–181. 
Pennycook, A. (1994). The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language. Essex: Longman Group Ltd.
Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical applied linguistics: A critical introduction. New York: Routledge.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pishghadam, R. & Zabihi, R. (2012). Crossing the Threshold of Iranian TEFL. Applied Research in English. 1 (1): 57-71.
Richards, J. C. (2001). The Role of Textbooks in a Language Program. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
Safar Navadeh, Kh. (2011). Presenting an English Language Curriculum Model for High School Level Based on Priciples and Features of CLT. Ph. D. Thesis. Kharazmi University, Tehran. (Text in Persian).
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching. 10(1-4): 209-232.
Strauss, A & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Translator Mohammadi, B. (2011). Tehran: The Research Center of Humanities and Cultural Studies. (Text in Persian).
Suciu, A. I., & Mana, L. (2011). An integrative innovative curricular model for teaching languages. International Journal of Education and Information Technologies. 3(5): 344-351
Tollefson, J. W. (2011). Ideology in second language acquisition. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 2). New York: Routledge.
Wang, H. (2015). An analysis of requirements and conditions of individualized College English syllabus design. Chinese Foreign Languages. 1: 24-32.
Waters, A., Vilches, Ma. Luz C (2005). Managing Innovation in Language Education. A Course for ELT Change Agents. RELC Journal. 36(2): 117-136.