Evaluation of English Textbooks Taught in Iranian Secondary High Schools from the Processability Theory Perspective
الموضوعات : نشریه زبان و ترجمه
Amir Hamzeh Gholami
1
,
Abbas Bayat
2
,
Peyman Rajabi
3
1 - Department of English Language, Malayer Branch, Islamic Azad University, Malayer, Iran
2 - Department of English Language, Malayer Branch, Islamic Azad University, Malayer, Iran
3 - Department of English Language, Malayer Branch, Islamic Azad University, Malayer, Iran
الکلمات المفتاحية: The Processability Theory, Teachability hypothesis, book evaluation, pedagogical progression,
ملخص المقالة :
Pienemann’s Process ability (PT) Theory is on the assumption that there is a limit on the human’s short-term memory and processing capacity. On the one hand, it means that those language structures which need higher processing should only be produced in the later stages of second language acquisition. On the other hand, it means that what is presented to second language learners has to be in line with their current level of proficiency. The present paper was an attempt to see if the English textbooks (Vision 1, 2, 3) taught in Iranian secondary high schools follow the developmental stages offered by PT. It also aimed to see if there was a smooth pedagogical progression from the first grade to the third grade in these textbooks. The findings showed that they only were successful at stage 1 of PT. In other words, they were more concerned with presenting words and phrases but when it came to other stages of the PT three major deviations were noticed: A) the early presentation of question forms before SVO structure is well-established, B) mixing the stages of PT, and C) omission of some intermediate stages. With regard to the second purpose, no smooth progression was seen from grade one to grade three. For example, while Vision 1 introduces subordinate clauses, surprisingly, a year later Vision 2 presents countable/uncountable words like “some, many, a few, a little...” which, according to PT, are a lot easier to process than complex sentences containing subordinate clauses.
Ågren, M.(2009). Morphological development in Swedish learners of French: Discussing the processability perspective. In J. U. Keßler & D. Keatinge (Eds.), Research in second language acquisition: Empirical evidence across languages (pp. 121-152). Cambridge, Scholars Publishing.
Atar, Cihat. (2021). An analysis of English textbooks in Turkish primary schools with regard to Processability Theory. Shanlax International Journal of Education. Vol.9, no.SI, 117-125.
Bettoni, C., Di Biase, B., & Nuzzo, E. (2009). Post-verbal subject in Italian L2: A processa- bility theory approach. In J. U. Keßler & D. Keatinge (Eds.), Research in second language acquisition: Empirical evidence across languages (pp. 153-173). Cambridge Scholars Publishing
Cook, Vivian. (2001). Second Language Learning and Language Teaching (3rd ed.). oxford University Press.
Cunningsworth, A. (1995). Choosing your course book. Oxford, UK: Heinemann.
DeKeyser, Robert. (2015). Skill Acquisition Theory. Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction, edited by Bill Van Patten, and Jessica Williams, Rout ledge, 94- 112.
Di Biase, B., & Kawaguchi, S. (2002). Exploring the typological plausibility of processability theory: Language development in Italian L2 and Japanese L2. Second Language Research, 18(3), 274-302.
Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1974). Natural se-quence in child language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 8(2), 129-136.
Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1973). Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning, 23(2), 245- 258.
Flymann Mattsson, Anna. (2019). Morpho-syntactic Development in the Input: A Study of Second Language Learning Textbooks. Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition Research & Teaching, edited by Ragnar Arntzen, et al. John Benjamins, 51-70.
Gholami, H. (2013). Learner autonomy: Breaking with the orthodoxy of teaching methods. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of English: university of Khorasgan, Isfahan.
Glahn, E, Hakansson, G, Hammarberg, B., Holmen, A., Hvenekilde, A., & Lund, K. (2001). Processability in Scandinavian second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23(3), 389-416.
Guo, Chengqian. (2018). Fit for Purpose? A New Approach to Evaluating the Suitability of Textbooks for the Teaching of Chinese as a Foreign Language in the UK, The University of Sheffield.
Hakansson, G., & Norby, C. (2006). Processability theory applied to written and oral Swedish. In F. Mansouri (Ed.), Second language acquisition research: Theory-construction and testing (pp. 81-94). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Husseinali, G. T. A. (2006). Processability and development of syntax and agreement in the inter-language of learners of Arabic as a foreign language (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Texas, Austin.
Jahangard, A. (2007). The evaluation of the EFL materials taught at Iranian public high schools. Karen’s Lingustics Issues. Retrived October 2008 from: http://www3.telus.net/lingustics Is-sues/beymonth.html.
Kaplan, R. M., & Bresnan, J. (1982). Lexical-fnctional grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation. In J. Bresnan (Ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations (pp. 173-281). MIT Press.
Keßler, Jörg-U. (2007). Assessing EFL-Development Online: A Feasibility Study of Rapid Profile.” Second Lan-guage Acquisition Research: Theory-Construction and Testing, edited by Fethi Mansouri, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 119-144.
Kessler, J., (2008). Processability approaches to second language development and second language learning. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Khansir, A. A., & Zaab, M. (2015). The im-pact of processability theory on the speaking abilities of Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 6(2), 343-349.
Kheirandish, et al. (2019). Vision 1 English for Schools. Ministry of Education Press. Tehran, Iran.
Kheirandish, et al. (2019). Vision 2 English for Schools. Ministry of Education Press.Tehran, Iran.
Kheirandish, et al. (2019). Vision 3 English for Schools. Ministry of Education Press. Tehran, Iran. Krashen, Stephen. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Prentice Hall.
Lenzing, Anke. (2008). Teachability and Learnability: An Analysis of Primary School Textbooks. Processability Ap-proaches to Second Language Devel-opment and Second Language Learning, edited by Jorg U. Keßler, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 221-244.
Mansouri, F. (2005). Agreement morphology in Arabic as a second language. In M. Pienemann (Ed.), Cross-linguistic aspects of processability theory (pp. 117-155). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Mansouri, F. (2000). Grammatical markedness and information processing in the acquisition of Arabic as a second language. Lincom Europa.
Mohammadkhani, A., Eslamdoost, S., & Gholamreza’i, S. (2011). An investigation of the role of instruction in second language production: A case of third person singular –s. Procedia –Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 910-916.
Peker, Hilal, & Esma Toprak Celen. (2020). A Critical Review on the Components of Processability Theory: Identifying the Limitations. ELT Research Journal, 1, 71- 89.
Pienemann, Manfred. (1998). Language Processing and Second Language Development: Processability Theory. John Benjamins.
Pienemann, M., & Hakansson, G. (1999). A unified approach towards the developmental of Swedish as L2: A processability account. SSLA. 21(3), 383-420
Pienemann, Manfred, & Jörg-U Keßler. (2007). Measuring Bilingualism. Handbook of Applied Linguistics, De Gruyter, 247-274.
Pienemann, Manfred, et al. (2005). Extend-ing Processability Theory.” Cross-Linguistic Aspects of Processability Theory edited by Manfred Pienemann, John Benjamins, 1
Pishghadam, R. & Mirzaee, M. (2008). Eng-lish language teaching in postmodern era,
ournal of teaching language and literature society of Iran, (25-40).
Sheldon, L. (1988). Evaluating ELT textbooks and materials. ELT Journal, 42 (4), 237-246. 99- 251.
Solaimani, H. (2013). A content analysis of Iranian high school EFL textbooks based on the theory of multiple intelli-gences. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of English: University of Isfahan.
Swain, Merrill, & Sharon Lapkin. (2002). “Talking it Through: Two French Immersion Learners’ Response to Reformulation.” International Journal of Educational Research, 37. 285-304.
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, (pp. 471–484). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Riazi, A & N, Mosalanejad. (2010). Evalua-tion of learning objectives in Iranian high-school and pre-university English textbooks using Bloom’s taxonomy. The Electronic Journal For English as a Second Language.
Ross, S. (1992). Program-defining evaluation in a decade of eclecticism in Aldderson, C. & Beretta, A. (1992), evaluating second language education Cambridge; CUP.
Taki, S., & Hamzehian, M. (2016). Cross-linguistic validation of PT: The case of EFL Iranian students’ speaking skill. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 4(15), 51-62.
Taki, S. (2008). International and Local Curricula: the question of ideology. Language Teaching Research, 12, 127-142.
Tang, Xiaofei. (2016). Learnability and Pedagogical Implication: An Acquisition-Based Evaluation of English Textbooks in China. The Australian National University.
Tang, Xiaofei. (2019). Learnability of Grammatical Sequencing: A Processability Perspective of Textbook Evaluation in EFL Settings.” Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 42, 236- 257.
Tarone, E. (1997). Analyzing IL in natural settings: A sociolinguistic perspective of second language acquisition. Communication and Cognition, 30, 137-150.
Wang, Xiaojing. (20011). Grammatical De-velopment among Chinese L2 Learners: From a Processability Account. Newcastle University.
Zipser, Katharina. (2012). Processability Theory and Pedagogical Progression in an Italian Textbook. Linguistica, 52, 55-68.
Zhang, Y. Y. (2004). Processing constraints, categorical analysis, and the second language acquisition of the Chinese adjective suffix –de (ADJ). Language Learning. 54(3)
