مقایسه تاثیر آموزش‌های آواشناسی و زبان کامل بر سواد نوشتاری دانش‌آموزان پسر پایه اول ابتدایی

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 کارشناسی ارشد روانشناسی تربیتی، دانشکده روانشناسی و علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران

2 دانشیار گروه روانشناسی به کاربسته، دانشکده روانشناسی و علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران

چکیده

پژوهش حاضر با هدف مقایسه سواد نوشتن دو گروه از دانش‌آموزان پسر پایه اول ابتدایی به انجام رسید. دو گروه دانش‌آموزان تحت دو روش آموزشی آواشناسی و زبان کامل در دو مدرسه متفاوت تحت آموزش قرار گرفتند. شروع آموزش نوشتن در گروه آواشناسی هم‌سو با زمان‌بندی کتاب درسی رسمی ایران، هم‌زمان با شروع آموزش خواندن بود، اما در روش زبان کامل آموزش نوشتن تقریبا با فاصله‌ای 2 ماهه از شروع آموزش خواندن شروع شد. روش پژوهش از نوع شبه تجربی و جامعه آماری تمام دانش‌آموزان پایه اول هر دو مدرسه در شهر تهران بودند. مدرسه زبان کامل دارای 65 دانش‌آموز و مدرسه آواشناسی دارای 45 دانش‌آموز بود. در این مطالعه از روش نمونه‌گیری غیر تصادفی در دسترس استفاده شد. بدین گونه که از هر مدرسه 30 نفر و مجموعا 60 نفر انتخاب شدند. ابزار سنجش آزمون پیشرفت تحصیلی نوشتن اول ابتدایی (راغب، 1384) بود که به صورت گروهی در هر دو مدرسه در دو مرحله پیش‌آزمون و پس‌آزمون به انجام رسید. جهت تحلیل آماری در این پژوهش از تحلیل کواریانس استفاده شد. نتایج نشان داد که عملکرد گروه آموزشی زبان کامل در خرده آزمون املا بهتر از عملکرد گروه آواشناسی بود (05/0>P). در خرده آزمون بیان نوشتاری تفاوت معناداری میان دو گروه مشاهده نشد. این پژوهش ابتدا تلنگری است برای بررسی اثربخشی روش آموزش نوشتن فعلی و نتایج آن قابل استفاده برای طیف وسیعی از مربیان و مسئولین آموزشی پایه اول ابتدایی است تا بتوانند در روش تدریس آموزش نوشتن خود تجدید نظر‌های لازم را انجام دهند.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Comparing the effect of phonics instruction and whole-language instruction on written literacy of the first-grade primary schoolboys.

نویسندگان [English]

  • Amirhesam babae 1
  • Jalil Fathabadi 2
1 Master of Educational Psychology, School of Education and Psychology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.
2 Associate Professor of Department of applied psychology, School of Education and Psychology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Language is the foundation of all education, and language skills include the four skills of listening, speaking, reading, and writing (Saffarpour, 2000). Written language is one of the essential forms of language learned after other forms of language. Among necessary skills, writing is the most tangible, because writing itself leaves a written document (Nader Tabare, 2001). Today, writing failure is the most common disability in communication skills. One of the most important reasons for this is that the written form of the language is the most excellent and complex form of communication and is the last skill that is learned (Gorji, 1995).
 
Writing includes a set of related writing skills such as spelling, written expression, and handwriting. Spelling means memorizing words, and written expression means the ability to create ideas and express them in an acceptable grammatical structure in a way that conforms to the principles of literary stylistics (Andalibi, 2007). Teaching reading and writing skills should begin after learning to speak and hear because reading and writing are more sophisticated techniques that are primarily based on the ability of human language. Unfortunately, learning to write often stops at the point of spelling. While writing should be taught to store and transfer information (Zarghamian, 1999).
 
Until a few decades ago, some people thought that literacy was easy to learn and that children did not need special education in this field. However, the results of research (Pressley, 2006; Davis, 2010; Gilles, 2006) have shown the undeniable effect of correct methods on children educational achievements. Based on real and experimental research, and considering theories of learning and teaching methods, numerous and sometimes contradictory theories about the correct way of literacy have been presented. While most proponents of the methods claim that their methods are the key to proper education, there is no conclusive evidence that any of the methods have been proven, or that they have been successful in real effectiveness or that they have failed (Brooks & Brooks, 2005). The multiplicity of educational theories and disagreements about the optimal method of teaching is to the extent that some have described it as the term "Great Debate" for it (Chall, Jajobs & Baldwin, 1990). The problem is that some of these methods apply completely contradictory training strategies to each other (Maddox & Feng, 2013).
 
In terms of learning theories, there are two predominant methods in literacy: Phonics and Whole-language. The phonics method is attributed to the behaviorist perspective, and the whole-language method is attributed to the constructivist perspective (Tracey & Morrow, 2012, P.201). The whole-language teaching method emphasizes learning through the meaningful components of language and the growth of literacy. First, general language units, i.e., text and sentences, are taught, and later, smaller units are taught (McKenna, Stratton, Grindler, & Jenkins, 1995). Experts believe that teaching in a whole-language style encourages reading and writing and leads students to authentic literature (Schmitt, 2009). In the whole-language method, learners first encounter with words that have a tangible meaning when they learn to read, and this makes the training sessions not dull, but the students feel that they are learning to read since the first session and this strengthens their motivation (Zafari Nejad, Javadi, & Dortaj, 2004).
 
The phonics has been used for a long time, and it has also been called the skill-based method (Whitehurst & Lonigan, 2001) or the bottom-up mental processing method (Evans, Bozonnet, Wang, Fredouille, & Troncy, 2012). The phonics method can be considered as explicit, step-by-step training that each phoneme or sound is learned by placing, combining, decoding, or playing exercises and manipulating words and changing them (Maddox & Feng, 2013). Proponents of phonics believe that direct, step-by-step instruction can help students master reading and writing skills in a planned way (Cromwell, 1997). The phonological teaching method emphasizes the skill of word analysis (Pressley, 2001). The goal of this skill-based training model is to help students change their focus during reading and writing experiences by breaking codes and deciphering words to grow in word and text comprehension (Hall-Kenyon & Bingham, 2011).
This study has been implemented to compare the written literacy of two groups of Iranian first-grade primary schoolboys. Each group learned to read and write with a different instructional method at two different schools; one was trained with traditional phonics procedure, and the other was trained with the whole-language approach. Commencing the writing instruction at the first group was concurrent with starting the reading instruction, but the writing instruction in the whole-language group began two months after the beginning of reading instruction. The research method was quasi-experimental, and the statistical community was all the students of the two schools. The whole-language school had 65 students, and traditional phonics school had 45 students. The non-random convenient sampling method was used in this study, so 30 students from each school, and totally, 60 students were chosen as a sample. The research tool was the first-grade Academic writing achievement Test (Ragheb, 1384) that was administrated in each group at pre-test and post-test jointly. For the statistical analysis, the Covariance method was used. The results indicated that whole-language students were better than traditional phonics students in the spelling (P<0/005). However, no significant difference was obtained between the two groups in the Composition. The results of this research are useable for a broad range of educators, teachers, and decision-makers of first-grade education and enable them to reconsider their instruction method.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • "Literacy"
  • "Writing Instruction"
  • "Whole-Language"
  • "First-grade"
Ahadi, H., & Kakavand, A. (2003). Learning disabilities (from theory to practice) with practical strategies for solving common educational and learning problem. Tehran, Tehran: Arasbaran. (Persian)

Al-Dosari, H. (2016). Effects of an Integrated Reading/Writing Approach on Improving Writing Skills of EFL Students. Dirasat: Educational Sciences, Vol. 43, p761-771. 11p.

Al-Ghamari, T. (2004). Integrating writing with other skills. Muscat Message, April, 78-81.

Andalibi, M. (2007). Basics of child language learning and teaching language skills. Tehran: Specialized media. (Persian)

Aro, M., & Wimmer, H. (2003). Learning to read: English in comparison to six more regular orthographiesApplied psycholinguistics24(4), 621-635.

Babayiğit, S., & Stainthorp, R. (2007). Preliterate phonological awareness and early literacy skills in TurkishJournal of Research in Reading30(4), 394-413.

Balooch, B., & Danaye Toos, M. (2006). Transparency of the spelling and its impact on the reading of natural and dyslexic readersContemporary Psychology, 1, 4-16. (Persian) https://www.sid.ir/Fa/Journal/ViewPaper.aspx?ID=57459

Berk, L. E. (2014). Development through the lifespan (Seyed Mohamadi, Y). Tehran: Arasbaran. (Original work published 2007) (Persian)

Boada, R., & Pennington, B. F. (2006). Deficient implicit phonological representations in children with dyslexia. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 95(3), 153–193.doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2006.04.003

Bohn, C. M., Roehrig, A. D., & Pressley, M. (2004). The First Days of School in the Classrooms of Two More Effective and Four Less Effective Primary-Grades Teachers. Elementary School Journal. 104(4), 269.

Boljonis, A., & Hinchman, K. (1988). First graders' perceptions of reading and writing. In National Reading Conference Yearbook. National Reading Conference.

Bridge, C., & Hiebert, E. (1985). A comparison of classroom writing practices, teachers' perceptions of their writing instruction, and textbook recommendations on writing practices. Elementary School Journal, 86, 155-172. doi.org/10.1086/461440

 

Brooks, M. C., & Brooks, J. S. (2005). Whole language or phonics: Improving language instruction through general semanticsETC: A Review of General Semantics62(3), 271-280.

Bruck, M., Treiman, R., Caravolas, M., Genesee, F., & Cassar, M. (1998). Spelling skills of children in whole language and phonics classrooms. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19(04), 669.doi:10.1017/s0142716400010419

Butyniec-Thomas, J., & Woloshyn, V. E. (1997). The effects of explicit-strategy and whole-language instruction on students’ spelling abilityThe Journal of Experimental Education65(4), 293-302.

Carson, J., & Leki, I. (1993). Reading in the composition classroom: Second language perspectives. Heinle & Heinle Publishers.

Christenson, S. L., Thurlow, M. L., Ysseldyke, J. E., & McVicar, R. (1989). Written Language Instruction for Students with Mild Handicaps: Is There Enough Quantity to Ensure Quality? Learning Disability Quarterly, 12(3), 219 229. https://doi.org/10.2307/1510691

Coker, D. L., Farley-Ripple, E., Jackson, A. F., Wen, H., MacArthur, C. A., & Jennings, A. S. (2016). Writing instruction in first grade: An observational studyReading and Writing29(5), 793-832

Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., Fishman, B., Giuliani, S., Luck, M., Underwood, P. S., ... & Schatschneider, C. (2011). Testing the impact of child characteristics× instruction interactions on third graders' reading comprehension by differentiating literacy instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(3), 189-221.

Cromwell, S. (1997). Whole language and phonics: Can they work together. Education World, 1-5.

Cutler, L., & Graham, S. (2008). Primary grade writing instruction: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 907-919.

Dahl, K., & Freppon, P. (1991). Literacy learning in whole-language classrooms: An analysis of low socioeconomic urban children learning to read and write in kindergarten. In J. Zutell & S. McCormick (Eds.), L.zamerfactors/teacherfacrors: Issues in literacy research and instruction (pp. 149-158). Chicago, 11,: National Reading Conference.

Davis, L. (2010). Toward a Lifetime of Literacy: The Effect of Student-Centered and Skills-Based Reading Instruction on the Experiences of Children. Literacy Teaching and Learning, Volume 15, p 53-79.

Evans, N., Bozonnet, S., Wang, D., Fredouille, C., & Troncy, R. (2012). A Comparative Study of Bottom-Up and Top-Down Approaches to Speaker Diarization. IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 20(2), 382–392. doi:10.1109/tasl.2011.2159710

Faydi, A. (2003). Integrating language skills & classroom interaction – The road to effective teaching. Muscat Message, February, 3-9.

Fisher, C., & Hiebert, E. (1990). Characteristics of tasks in two approaches to literacy instruction. Elementary School Journal, 91:1, 3-18.

Gambrell, L.B., & Palmer, B. (1992). Children’s metacognitive knowledge about reading writing in literature-based and conventional classrooms. In C.K. Kinzer & D.J. Leu (Eds.). Literacy research, theory and practice: Views from many perspectives (pp. 215-224) Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference.

Gilles, C. (2006). AN INVITATION FOR A SPECIAL ISSUE ON WHOLE LANGUAGE. International Journal of Progressive Education,, Volume 2 Number 2.

Gohari, A. (1997). Analyzing the students's style of composition and strategies to improve it. 34/5000 Education Department of Ilam Province. (Persian)

Goodman, K. (1992). I didn't found whole language. The Reading Teacher, 46,188-199.

Gorgi, Y. (1995). The article collection of the first symposium on the role of elementary education and its desired position in society. Ministry of Education, Education Directorate of Isfahan, Deputy Of General Education. (Persian)

Graham, S., & Harris, K. (1994). The effects of whole language on children's writing: A review of literatureEducational psychologist29(4), 187-192.

Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1994). The role and development of self-regulation in the writing process. InD. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimrnerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications (pp. 203-228). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Graham, S., & Hebert, M. (2010). Writing to read: Evidence for how writing can improve reading. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.

Graham, S., & Hebert, M. (2011). Writing to read: A meta-analysis of the impact of writing and writing instruction on reading. Harvard Educational Review81(4), 710-744.

Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next-effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools.

Graham, S., McKeown, D., Kiuhara, S., & Harris, K. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for students in the elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 879–896. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0029185

Gunderson, L., & Shapiro, J. (1988). Whole language instruction: Writing in first grade. The Reading Teacher, 42,430-437.

Hagerty, P. J., Hiebert, E. H., & Owens, M. K. (1988). Students' comprehension, writing and perceptions in two approaches to literacy instruction. In S. McCormick & J. Zutell (Eds.), Cognitive and socialperspectives for literacy research and instruction (pp. 453-459). Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference.

Hall‐Kenyon, G. E. (2011). Examining teachers' beliefs about and implementation of a balanced literacy framework. Journal of Research in Reading, Volume 36, Issue 1. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01483.x

Hao, X., & Sivell, J. (2002). Integrating Reading and Writing in EFL Composition in China. ERIC.

Harris, K. R. (2009). Metacognition and children’s writing. In D. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. Graesser (Eds.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hodges, R. E. (1982). Improving spelling and vocabulary in the secondary school. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Jones, M. N., Dye, M., & Johns, B. T. (2017). Context as an organizing principle of the lexicon. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 67, 239–283. doi:10.1016/bs .plm.2017.03.008

Klesius, J. P., Griffith, P. L., & Zielonka, P. (1990). A whole language and traditional instruction comparison: Overall effectiveness and development of the alphabetic principleLiteracy Research and Instruction30(2), 47-61.

Landerl, K., Wimmer, H., & Frith, U. (1997). The impact of orthographic consistency on dyslexia: A German-English comparison. Cognition, 63(3), 315–334. doi:10.1016/s0010-0277(97)00005-x

Maddox, K., & Feng, J. (2013). Whole Language Instruction vs. Phonics Instruction: Effect on Reading Fluency and Spelling Accuracy of First Grade StudentsOnline Submission.

Marino, J. (1980). What makes a good speller? Language Arts, 57, 173-177.

McKenna, M. C., Stratton, B. D., Grindler, M. C., & Jenkins, S. J. (1995). Differential Effects of Whole Language and Traditional Instruction on Reading Attitudes. Journal of Reading Behavior, 27(1), 19–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862969509547867

Mokhaimer, Absee (2014) The Effect of Condolences in Developing the Achieving Motive for a Sample of 10th Grade Students in Arabic Language Grammar. Al-Aqsa Journal. 18(2): 145-174.

Nader Tabare, M. (2001). Good and Bad handwriting in elementary students. Roshd Journal of Elementry Education. (Persian)

Nelson, N., & Calfee, R. C. (1997). The reading-writing connection viewed historically. YEARBOOK-NATIONAL SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF EDUCATION2, 1-52.

Pressley, M., Wharton-McDonald, R., Allington, R., Block, C. C., Morrow, L., Tracey, D., ... & Woo, D. (2001). A study of effective first-grade literacy instructionScientific studies of reading5(1), 35-58.

Pressley, M. (2002). Reading Instruction That Works, Second Edition: The Case for Balanced Teaching. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Radebaugh, M. (1985). Children's Perceptions of Their Spelling Strategies. The Reading Teacher, 38(6), 532-536.

Ragheb, H. (2004). Psychometric properties of first grade elementary academic achievement test. Research on Exceptional Children, 11-14(4), 51-62. Retrieved from https://www.sid.ir/fa/journal/ViewPaper.aspx?id=32512. (Persian)

Roberts, T. A., & Meiring, A. (2006). Teaching phonics in the context of children's literature or spelling: Influences on first-grade reading, spelling, and writing and fifth-grade comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 690-713. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.4.690

Saffarpour, A. (2000). The strategies for teaching language skills to second graders: For Teachers, Coaches, and Students at Educational Centers. Tehran: Iran Research and Planning Organization. (Persian)

Schmitt, E. (2009). The reading attitude and practices of teacher and students in second grade. A thesis for the degree of Master of Education. college of Bowling, Greean state University, Ohio.

Sears, N. C., & Johnson, D. M. (1986). The effects of visual imagery on spelling performance and retention among elementary studentsThe Journal of Educational Research79(4), 230-233.

Shanahan, T., (2006). Relations among oral language, reading, and writing development. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 171-183). New York NY: Guilford Press.

Shohoudi Mozhdehi, A., Mofidi, F., Alizadeh, H. (2013). A Comparison of Writing Skills among First Grade Elementary Students with and without Preschool Experience. Educational Psychology, 9(28), 2-14. (Persian)

Soltis, J. M., & Walberg, H. J. (1989). Thirteen-year-olds’ writing achievements: A secondary analysis of the fourth national assessment of writingThe Journal of Educational Research83(1), 22-29.

Soltis, J. M., & Walberg, H. J. (1989). Thirteen-year-olds’ writing achievements: A secondary analysis of the fourth national assessment of writingThe Journal of Educational Research83(1), 22-29.

Spiegel, D. (1992). Commentary: Blending Whole Language and Systematic Direct Instruction. The Reading Teacher, 46(1), 38-44. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20201008

Tedick, D. J., Carson, J. G., & Leki, I. (1994). Reading in the Composition Classroom: Second Language Perspectives. The Modern Language Journal, 78(2), 239. doi:10.2307/329014

Tierney, R. J., & Leys, M. (1984). What is the value of connecting reading and writing?. Reading education report; no. 55.

Tierney, R. J., & Shanahan, T. (1991). Research on the reading–writing relationship: Interactions, transactions, and outcomes. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, Vol. 2, pp. 246-280). Hillsdale, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Tracey, D. H., & Morrow, L. M. (2012). Lenses on Reading, Second Edition: An Introduction to Theories and Models. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Treiman, R. (1993). Beginning to spell: A study of first-grade children. New York: Oxford University Press.

Westby, C. E., & Costlow, L. (1991). Implementing a whole language program in a special education classTopics in language disorders.

Whitehurst, G. J., & Lonigan, C. J. (2001). Emergent literacy: Development from prereaders to readersHandbook of early literacy research, 1, 11-29.

Yeganeh, S. (2014). The Effects of Transparency and Blurring of the Persian Script on the Writing Skills of Normal and Dyslexic Children through Phonological Awareness Tests and Spelling. Language Science, 2(2), 71-96. doi: 10.22054/ls.2014.1081 (Persian)

Zafari Nejad, A., Javadi, Y., & Dortaj, F. (2004). Assessing the writing skill of first-grade primary students are the in Yasuj. Journal of Psychology and Education (Kerman Province), 145-159. https://www.sid.ir/fa/journal/ViewPaper.aspx?ID=93494 (Persian)

Zarghamian, M. (1999). Learn linguistic skills and linguistic issues. Roshd Journal of Elementry Education, 144-145. (Persian)

Zolfaghari, T. (1995). Studying the problems of composition and providing appropriate methods for training it. The Council for Research and Education of Semnan Province, Iran. (Persian)