A Study on Indicators of Writing Instruction in Iranian English as a Foreign Language Curriculum at Guidance and High School Educational Levels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractIn this study, the indicators of EFL writing instruction have been studied at guidance and high school educational levels. The research questions were as follows: What are the indicators of writing EFL instruction at guidance school and high school EFL curriculum? What are the indicators of writing EFL instruction in Iran's guidance school and high school English textbooks? What are the weak and strong points of the instructional objectives of EFL writing in Iran's guidance school and high school English textbooks according to the indicators of writing instruction in EFL curriculum? To answer these questions, the language arts curriculum of Finland (2004), Lebanon (1995), and Canada (2001), and also Iran's has been analyzed qualitatively (through grounded theory method) at guidance school and high school levels. Because there has been no document as EFL curriculum in Iran's ministry of education, guidance school and high school textbooks were scrutinized carefully to extract the EFL writing theoretical framework and educational objectives. Findings showed that Iran's EFL textbooks for these educational levels have not been developed based on a particular theoretical framework. Here, EFL writing has been considered as something taken for granted and no particular definition has been considered for this language art and its sub-skills. The textbook developers not only did not deal with the conceptual framework of EFL writing, but also they did not develop the educational objectives explicitly. These leaded in developing general and ambiguous exercises in textbooks. In addition, no practical strategy has been presented for EFL teachers to enable them to achieve implied educational objectives in classes. In general, it could be concluded that EFL writing instruction in Iran follows no particular theoretical framework and objective. The implications of the findings would be discussed.Keywords: Writing Indicators, EFL Curriculum, Guidance School, High SchoolIntroductionLanguage plays an important role in thinking, learning and communication. The students who have more ability to better understand and use language can take advantage of this ability. Literacy is something more than just the ability to read or write. The curriculum of different educational levels is specifically dedicated to teaching skills such as listening, speaking, reading, writing, viewing and media literacy. Linguistic abilities and skills enable students to learn about different topics, use language for different purposes, and enable them to communicate successfully. Students should be able to use the language correctly and fluently in different situations. National Language learning in primary school curriculum is important because learning subjects such as science, math, and social sciences could not be possible without language knowledge and skills. On the other hand, the curriculum taught in other academic courses is also very important because they are necessary tools for interaction and integration of information, as well as logical thinking and creative expression in speech and writing of students.English as an international language is the most important means of communication between different nations. The necessity to learn a foreign language is obvious for everyone in today's world. The issue is of more importance in countries such as Iran, wherein the need to introduce the Iranian Islamic culture to the world is of great significance. Accordingly, the importance of EFL in Iran illustrates the need to pay more attention to the role of the English language. Language learning basically entails the integration of the four language skills: listening, speaking, reading and writing. Hence, the development of the four basic language skills constitutes a very important requirement of the curriculum.At guidance school which is the beginning level of learning the foreign language, the foundation of English as foreign language knowledge and skills are developed in students and their instruction is continued throughout school years. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".