A Comparative Study on Objectives and Components of Reading Skill in National Curriculum of Iran and America (New Jersey) at High School
Author :
Abstract
This study aims to provide a preliminary of the codification of the objectives and components of teaching reading within the National Language curriculum in upper secondary in correlation with elementary and lower secondary curriculums. The data includes the Persian Language curriculum in Iranian upper secondary schools (version 2007) and American core curriculum for Language Arts (in New Jersey, 2004) collected through library study and note taking from Iran and foreign documents. The data have been analyzed qualitatively (through grounded theory method) at the secondary level. In the present research, objectives and components of teaching reading within the curriculums of mentioned countries are analyzed and surveyed based on Autonomous and Ideological approaches to literacy; suggesting that objectives and components of American curriculum for teaching reading are formularized and influenced by Ideological approach, whereas Iranian reading curriculum owns the features of Autonomous Approach (consciously or unconsciously) and features related to Ideological approach are negligible in Iran. After discussing characteristics of curriculums in America (New Jersey), influenced by the Ideological approach to literacy, the merits and demerits of objectives and components of Iranian curriculum for teaching reading and some proposals to refine have been cited.
Keywords
Abstract
This study aims to provide a preliminary of the codification of the objectives and components of teaching reading within the National Language curriculum in upper secondary in correlation with elementary and lower secondary curriculums. The data includes the Persian Language curriculum in Iranian upper secondary schools (version 2007) and American core curriculum for Language Arts (in New Jersey, 2004) collected through library study and note taking from Iran and foreign documents. The data have been analyzed qualitatively (through grounded theory method) at the secondary level. In the present research, objectives and components of teaching reading within the curriculums of mentioned countries are analyzed and surveyed based on Autonomous and Ideological approaches to literacy; suggesting that objectives and components of American curriculum for teaching reading are formularized and influenced by Ideological approach, whereas Iranian reading curriculum owns the features of Autonomous Approach (consciously or unconsciously) and features related to Ideological approach are negligible in Iran. After discussing characteristics of curriculums in America (New Jersey), influenced by the Ideological approach to literacy, the merits and demerits of objectives and components of Iranian curriculum for teaching reading and some proposals to refine have been cited.
Keywords
- Agnello, M.F. (2001). A postmodern literacy policy analysis, Peter Lang Pub Inc, New York.
- Agnello, M.F. (2001). A postmodern literacy policy analysis, Peter Lang Pub Inc, New York.
- Beder,H. (1991). Adult literacy: Issues for policy and practice, Krieger Pub Co., Malabar, India.
- Bloome,B., Englehart,M., Frust, E., Hill, W., Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of educationalobjectives: the classification of educational goals, Handbook 1, cognitive domain, Longmans, Green: New York, Toronto.
- Danaye Tousi, M., Kiamanesh, A. (2009).The theoretical approaches to literacy: evidence fromAmerica, Canada, England, Singapore, Senegal, Indonesia and Iran's curriculum, Iranian Journal of Educational Innovations, 31:8,31-46.
- Dastoori, L. (2009). Comparative study of teaching creative writing (composition) in nationalcurriculum of Iran, America & England at primary stage, M.S. thesis, Dept. Linguistic and Languages, Univ. Payame Nour university, Tehran, Iran.
- Drucker, P. (1994). The age of social transformation [Electronic version], Atlantic Monthly pp.53-79. Ediger, M. (2000). Writing, The pupil and the social studies, College student journal, 34:1.
- Ercikan, K. R., Roth, W-M. (2006). what good is polarizing research into qualitative and quantitative? Educational Researcher, 35(5), 14-23.
- Flood, J., Jensen, J.M. (1991). Handbook of research on teaching the language arts, Free Press.
- Ghaderi Doust, E. (2016). A comparative study on objectives and components of writing skill in
- Ghasempour Moghadam, H., Zandi, B., and Bakhshesh, M.(2008). A comparative study on national language programs at elementary level in Iran and US, Journal of curriculum studies. 3:8 1-22
- Ghasempour Moghadam, H. (2008). The study of philosophic, psychological and linguisticprinciples of Persian curriculum in elementary level, Journal of curriculum studies. 3:10, 18-41.
- Hammett, R.M., Barrell, B.R. (2002). Media literacy and English language arts, Ricci Nipissing Univ., Carlo, Canada.
- Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come, Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
- Joyce, Vantassel-Baska, (2002). A curriculum study of gifted-students learning in the language arts, gifted child quarterly. 46:1, 30-44.
- Kermani, M. (1998). Survey contents of Persian books (1,2) of the first course in High Schools basedon planning and psychological doctrines from teachers' and students' standpoints in the first course of high school in Tabriz, M.S. thesis, Dept. Education, Univ. Kharazmi, Tehran, Iran.
- Larson, J. (1996). Challenging autonomous models of literacy: Street's call to active linguistics and education. 8, 439-445
- Liddicoat, A.J. (2007), Language planning and Policy:Issues in language planning and literacy, Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, United Kingdom, pp. 13-29.
- Malkin, L., Diaz, C.J, Mclanchlar, C. (2002). Literacy's in early childhood, changing views, challenging practice, 2nd ed., Marrickvill, Australia, pp. 257-271.
- Salsabili, N. (2000). Presenting a guide schema in applying policies in planning curriculum systemsin modern high school course, PhD dissertation, Dept. Education and lesson planning, Univ. Kharazmi, Tehran, Iran.
- Sepehri, M. (1996). National curriculum in primary education, M.S. thesis, Dept. Education, Univ. Sheffield, London, England.
- Stotsky, S. (2013). An English language arts curriculum framework for American public schools, University of Arkansas, USA.
- Street, B. (1995). Social literacy: critical approaches to literacy in development, Education and Ethnography, Longman, London, United Kingdom.
- Street, B. (2001). Literacy and development: Ethnographic Perspectives, Rout ledge, London, United Kingdom.
- Street, B. (1993). Cross-cultural approaches to literacy, Cambridge University press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, pp. 1-21.
- United Nations, (2005). EFA global monitoring report 2006 education for all- literacy for life, educational, scientific and cultural organization.
