نگاهی نو به آموزش دستور زبان: معرفی آموزش «فکربردی»

نوع مقاله : علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان
رضا پیشقدم 1
شیما ابراهیمی 2
1 دکتری آموزش زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد، مشهد، ایران
2 دکتری زبان‌شناسی همگانی، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد، مشهد، ایران
چکیده
آموزش دستور یکی از فرایندهای مهم آموزش زبان است که با فراز و نشیب‌های بسیاری روبه­رو بوده است. در روش‌های سنتی تأکید را روی به‌خاطرسپاری قواعد دستوری می‌گذارند؛ اما رویکردهای نوین آموزشی به ارتقای توانایی ارتباطی از طریق دستور نیز توجه می‌کنند. پژوهش حاضر می‌کوشد پس از بررسی سیر تاریخی آموزش دستور، رویکردهای نوین آموزشی بر اساس حس و تفکر را پیشنهاد دهد. نگارندگان بر اساس سطوح تفکر بالا و پایین و درگیری حواس زیاد (حواس ‌افزوده) و حواس کم (حواس‌ کاسته)، چهار آموزش «نظری»، «کاربردی»، «فکرورزی» و «فکربردی» را معرفی کرده‌ و بدین نتیجه دست یافته‌اند که آموختن قواعد دستوری به تنهایی کافی نیست؛ بلکه مدرس باید تلاش کند آموزش دستور را به‌گونه‌ای انجام دهد که قواعد دستوری در حافظۀ بلندمدت زبان‌آموز ثبت شود. بنابراین، دستور را می‌توان به شیوۀ فکربردی انجام داد و انواع تفکرهای انتقادی، خلاقانه و آینده‎‌نگر او را نیز پرورش داد. در این روش، با افزایش قدرت تفکر و درگیری حواسِ بیشتر، میزان توجه زبان‌آموز بیشتر می­شود و خلاقیت و توانش ارتباطی او نیز افزایش می‌یابد و این امر میزان یادگیری نکات دستوری را افزایش می‌دهد. در این راستا، استفاده از تمرین‌های دستوری تکلیف‌محور و تمرین‌هایی که به تفکرهای انتقادی و خلاقانه می‌انجامد، مؤثر به‌نظر می‌رسد و مدرس می‌تواند از طریق آن‌ها دستور را به‌شکل کاربردی و فکربردی آموزش دهد.
کلیدواژه‌ها
واژه‌های کلیدی: دستور
تفکر
حواس
آموزش فکربردی
موضوعات

عنوان مقاله English

Teaching Grammar Revisited: An Introduction to Applicative Teaching

نویسندگان English

Reza Pishghadam 1
Shima Ebrahimi 2
1 Professor of English Language Education and Educational Psychology- Ferdowsi University of Mashhad
2 Assistant Professor of Persian Language Teaching- Ferdowsi University of Mashhad
چکیده English

Among the most controversial issues in language teaching is teaching grammar. Some educational approaches pay significant attention to linguistic forms and believe that language teaching is equal to teaching grammar (Nassaji & Fotos, 2011). Nowadays, a more rational approach is taken regarding teaching grammar. Learning grammar is argued to be necessary for uttering correct sentences and paying simultaneous attention to form and function is a must in language teaching. Robins (as cited in Safavi, 2011, p.25) is of the view that “language should be considered as a system with mutually-related dependent factors. These factors are either lexical, syntactical, or morphological.” Therefore, syntax can be considered as the organizing element for these factors. Based on prioritizing syntax in language teaching, various methods have been taken into consideration, among which traditional ones, such as Grammar-Translation Method (GTM), put a great emphasis on teaching grammar deductively. On the other hand, methods, such as Audiolingualism, suggest inductive teaching because they believe verbal communication is as essential as grammatical forms. Meaning-based approaches pay attention to meaning, and in their extreme extensions, such as natural approach, grammar is completely put aside. Communicative approaches, as the name suggests, highlight the communicative aspects of language, and grammar, along with other components of language, is utilized to improve communicative competence.

By introducing the cognitive approach, whose idea revolves around the fact that the structure of language reflects our thoughts, the role of senses and cognition in teaching linguistic components, including grammar, became important. By means of such approaches, learners can objectify abstract concepts through their senses and use critical thinking, futures thinking, and creative thinking to learn the language more thoroughly. Here, grammar is not merely a set of memorized rules, but it is a tool by which learners can think better. The present study, therefore, intends to introduce an educational approach that include various levels of senses, because we are of the view that grammar should be thought more dynamically to improve the learners’ reflection. This, we believe, can be achieved by a new categorization based on thick-slice and thin-slice sensory teaching, which is beyond theoretical teaching, and includes practical teaching and thinking skills teaching. The presented approach, applicative teaching, whose name is a mixture of application and reflection, teaches students how to think critically, creatively, and futuristically. Based on this approach, grammar teaching starts with theoretical, form-based aspects and moves to practical, function-based aspects, and tries to fixate the rules by making students think about what has been taught. Results show that by involving senses and cognition, learners’ awareness, creativity, and communicative competence are improved, which can consequently help them learn the grammatical rules better. In this vein, teachers can employ those tasks that boost students’ creative thinking and critical thinking to teach grammar applicatively.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Keywords: Grammar teaching
cognition
Senses
Applicative teaching
• آخوندزاده، کبری.؛ احمدی تهران، هدی.، صالحی، شایسته. و عابدینی، زهرا. (1390). «تفکر انتقادی در حوزه آموزش پرستاری ایران». آموزش در علوم پزشکی، 11 (3)، 210-221.
• پیش‌قدم، رضا.، طباطبائیان، مریم. و ناوری، صفورا. (1392). تحلیل انتقادی و کاربردی نظزیه‌های فراگیری زبان اول: از پیدایش تا تکوین. مشهد: دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد.
• دیویی، جان. (1938). تجربه و آموزش و پرورش. ترجمه سیداکبر میرحسینی، 1369، تهران: انتشارت کتاب.
• صفوی، کوروش. (1390). از زبان‌شناسی به ادبیات. تهران: سوره مهر.
• طالبی، زهرا.؛ اسدی، نادر. و دواتگری، هانیه. (1397). «بررسی مقایسه‌ای تاثیر روش‌های تدریس مبتنی بر رویکرد نتیجه‌گرا، فرآیندگرا و فن بیان در مهارت نگارشی فراگیران زبان انگلیسی سطح متوسط»، جستارهای زبانی، د.9، ش. 3، صص 159-178.
• فضائلی، سیده مریم.، ابراهیمی، شیما. (1393). «تحلیل سبک‌شناسی داستان هفت‌خوان رستم شاهنامه در چارچوب دستور نقش‌گرای نظام‌مند هلیدی». مطالعه زبان و گویش‌های غرب ایران، ش.4، صص 119-142.
• ملکی، حسن. (1382). برنامه‌ریزی درسی (راهنمای عمل). تهران: انتشارات مدرسه.
• وحدت، رقیه.؛ زینالی، علی. و احمدی دویران، زکیه. (1390). «رابطه‌ی بین گرایش تفکر انتقادی و پیشرفت تحصیلی دانش‌آموزان متوسط ارومیه». دانشکده پرستاری و مامایی ارومیه، 10 (1)، 97-104.
References
• Baines, L. (2008). A teachers’ guide to learning multisensory improving literacy by engaging the senses. Virginia USA: Association for supervision and curriculum development (ASCD).
• Bloom, B.S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, Handbook: The Cognitive Domain. David McKay, New York.
• Brown, D. (2006). Principles of language learning and teaching. Addiaon Welaley Longman, Inc.
• Bruner J.S. & Goodnow, J.J. (1984). A study of thinking. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
• Chamsky, N. (1966). Linguistic theory. Repr. In. J.P.B. Allen and P. Van Buren (eds.), Chamsky: Selected Readings. London: Oxford University Press.
• Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety: Experiencing flow in work and play. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar: syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Curtis, F., Rudd, T., Gallo, R., Eckhartm M., Rickerts, E. (2008). "Overtly teaching critical thinking and inquiry-based learning: A comparison of two undergraduate biotechnology classes". Journal of agricultural education, 49 (1), 72-84.
• Dewey, J. (1963). Experience and Education. New York: Macmillan.
• Ellis, R. (2005). Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed, tr. Myra Bergman Ramos, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
• Freire, M. & Macedo, D. (1998). The Paulo Freire reader. New York: The Continuum International Publishing Group Inc.
• Geeraerts, D. (1996). Cognitive linguistics: In handbook of pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
• Hall, G. (2011). Exploring English language teaching: language in action. Abingdon and New York: Routledge
• Halliday, M.A.K. (1975). Learning how to mean: Exploration in the development of language. London: Edward Arnold.
• Hedge, T. (1994). "Second language pedagogy: writing". Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, Pergamon/Elsevier Science, 3774-3778.
• Isen, A. M., & Shmidt, E. (2007). Positive affect facilitates incidental learning and divided attention while not impairing performance on a focal task. Paper presented at the Emotions Pre-Conference at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Memphis, TN.
• Keck, C. & Kim, Y. (2014). Pedagogical grammar. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
• Krashen, S.D. (1982). Principles and practice in second-language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
• Lakoff,, G. & Johnson. M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Langacker, R.W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Stanford University Press.
• Montesseroi, M. (2004). The Montessori method: The origin of an educational innovation: Including an abridged and annotated edition of Maria Montessori’s the Montessori method. United States of America: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
• Nassaji, H. & Fotos, S. (2011). Teaching grammar in second language classrooms: integrating form-focused instruction in communicative context. New York: Routledge.
• Nassaji, H. & Fotos, S. (2004). "Current developments in research on the teaching of grammar". Annual review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 126-145.
• Pincas, A., (1982). Teaching English writing. London: Macmillian.
• Pishghadam, R. (2018). An introduction to thin-slice sensory education: Less is more. International Academic Conference on Economics, Business and Social Sciences, European Institute for Research and Development.
• Pishghadam, R. (2015). Emotioncy in language education: From exvolvement to involvement. Paper presented at the 2nd conference of Interdisciplinary Approaches to Language Teaching, Literature, and Translation Studies. Iran, Mashhad.
• Quinn, F. (2000) The principles and practice of nurse education. London: Chapman and Hall Co.
• Reid, J. M. (1987). "The learning style preferences of ESL students". Tesol Quarterly. 21 (1), 87-110.
• Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Richards, J.C. & Rodgers, Th.S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Schmidt, R. (1990). "The role of consciousness in second language learning". Applied linguistics, 11(2), 129-158.
• Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Ur, P. (2011). Grammar teaching: research, theory, and practice. In E. Hinkel (ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning .New York and Abingdon: Routledge, 507-522.
• Varela, F., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1993). The embodied mind. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
• Walker, N. (2014). "Listening: The most difficult skill to teach". Encuentro, 23, 167-175.