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

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 (0.05>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.

Comparing the effect of phonics instruction and wholelanguage instruction on written literacy of the firstgrade primary schoolboys.

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 Wholelanguage. The phonics method is attributed to the behaviorist perspective, and the wholelanguage method is attributed to the constructivist perspective (Tracey & Morrow, 2012, P.201). The wholelanguage 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 wholelanguage style encourages reading and writing and leads students to authentic literature (Schmitt, 2009). In the wholelanguage 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 skillbased method (Whitehurst & Lonigan, 2001) or the bottomup mental processing method (Evans, Bozonnet, Wang, Fredouille, & Troncy, 2012). The phonics method can be considered as explicit, stepbystep 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, stepbystep 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 skillbased 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 (HallKenyon & Bingham, 2011). This study has been implemented to compare the written literacy of two groups of Iranian firstgrade 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 wholelanguage approach. Commencing the writing instruction at the first group was concurrent with starting the reading instruction, but the writing instruction in the wholelanguage group began two months after the beginning of reading instruction. The research method was quasiexperimental, and the statistical community was all the students of the two schools. The wholelanguage school had 65 students, and traditional phonics school had 45 students. The nonrandom 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 firstgrade Academic writing achievement Test (Ragheb, 1384) that was administrated in each group at pretest and posttest jointly. For the statistical analysis, the Covariance method was used. The results indicated that wholelanguage 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 decisionmakers of firstgrade education and enable them to reconsider their instruction method.