See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/282511364

Communicating sociocultural norms and social and religious practices in

Iranian death notices

Article in Social Semiotics · September 2015

DOI: 10.1080/10350330.2015.1088216

CITATIONS READS

4 184

2 authors:

Mohammad Aliakbari Hasan Tarlani

Ilam University Farhanghian University
153 PUBLICATIONS 1,463 CITATIONS 8 PUBLICATIONS 89 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohammad Aliakbari on 17 November 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Received: 9 November 2016 Revised: 1 September 2017 Accepted: 1 October 2017
DOI: 10.1111/ijal.12195

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Categorization of writing tasks in Iranian senior

high school English textbooks
Mohammad Aliakbari | Hassan Tarlani‐Aliabadi

Ilam University, Ilam, Iran

Using Littlejohn's (2011) task analysis sheet, this study examined
Correspondence
Mohammad Aliakbari, Ilam University, Ilam, writing tasks in Iranian ELT textbooks developed by Iran's Ministry
Iran. of Education since 1979 to see whether their underlying aspects
Email: [email protected]
reflected universal SLA principles. Almost all of the writing tasks
were found to be writing‐as‐a‐means type engaging the students
with aspects of language other than the writing itself. Also, the text-
books relied heavily on mechanical writing drills to practice certain
structures thereby lagging behind SLA research and practice. More-
over, interviews with one key official and one ELT material devel-
oper attested to the lack of any ELT‐specific documents for
material development. It is recommended that L2 writing pedagogy
in Iran and similar contexts needs to be reevaluated in the light of
more recent breakthroughs in writing scholarship.

KEYWORDS

English textbooks, writing tasks, writing‐as‐a‐means, mechanical

writing drills

‫( ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺶ ﺣﺎﺿﺮ ﻭﯾﮋﮔﯽ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺯﯾﺮﯾﻦ )ﭘﻨﻬﺎﻥ( ﺗﻤﺮﯾﻨﺎﺕ‬2011) ‫ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺪﻝ ﻟﯿﺘﻞ ﺟﺎﻥ‬
1979 ‫ﻧﻮﺷﺘﺎﺭ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﮐﺘﺎﺑﻬﺎﯼ ﺩﺭﺳﯽ ﺍﻧﮕﻠﯿﺴﯽ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺩﺑﯿﺮﺳﺘﺎﻥ ﻭ ﭘﯿﺶ ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻫﯽ ﺍﺯ ﺳﺎﻝ‬
.‫ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﻭﺍﮐﺎﻭﯼ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺩﺍﺩ ﺗﺎ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﺩﻫﺪ ﺁﯾﺎ ﺍﯾﻦ ﻭﯾﮋﮔﯽ ﻫﺎ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺻﻮﻝ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﻡ ﻣﻄﺎﺑﻘﺖ ﺩﺍﺭﻧﺪ‬
‫ﻧﺘﺎﯾﺞ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﺩﺍﺩ ﮐﻪ ﺍﻏﻠﺐ ﺗﻤﺮﯾﻨﺎﺕ ﻧﻮﺷﺘﺎﺭﯼ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻮﻉ ﺗﻤﺮﯾﻨﺎﺕ ﻧﻮﺷﺘﺎﺭﯼ ﺩﺭ ﺟﻬﺖ ﺗﻘﻮﯾﺖ ﻣﻬﺎﺭﺗﻬﺎﯼ‬
‫ ﺗﻤﺮﯾﻨﺎﺕ ﻧﻮﺷﺘﺎﺭﯼ‬،‫ ﺍﻏﻠﺐ ﺍﯾﻦ ﺗﻤﺮﯾﻨﺎﺕ‬،‫ ﻫﻤﭽﻨﯿﻦ‬.‫ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ ﻏﯿﺮﺍﺯﺧﻮﺩ ﻣﻬﺎﺭﺕ ﻧﻮﺷﺘﺎﺭ ﺑﻮﺩﻧﺪ‬
‫ ﻧﺘﺎﯾﺞ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﺍﺳﻨﺎﺩ ﻣﻠﯽ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﻣﺴﺘﻨﺪ ﻭ ﻣﺼﺎﺣﺒﻪ ﻫﺎ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﺩﺍﺩﻧﺪ ﮐﻪ‬،‫ ﻋﻼﻭﻩ ﺑﺮ ﺍﯾﻨﻬﺎ‬.‫ﻣﮑﺎﻧﯿﮑﯽ ﺑﻮﺩﻧﺪ‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﻃﻮﻝ ﺍﯾﻦ ﺳﺎﻟﻬﺎ ﻫﯿﭻ ﺳﻨﺪﯼ ﻣﺘﺨﺺ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺍﻧﮕﻠﯿﺴﯽ ﺩﺭ ﺍﯾﺮﺍﻥ ﺗﺪﻭﯾﻦ ﻧﺸﺪﻩ ﺑﻮﺩﻩ ﮐﻪ ﻃﺒﻖ‬
‫ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﯽ ﺭﺳﺪ ﮐﻪ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺵ ﻣﻬﺎﺭﺕ‬،‫ ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺍﯾﻦ ﻧﺘﺎﯾﺞ‬.‫ﺍﯾﻨﻬﺎ ﮐﺘﺎﺑﻬﺎﯼ ﺩﺭﺳﯽ ﻧﻮﺷﺘﻪ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺑﺎﺷﻨﺪ‬
‫ﻧﻮﺷﺘﺎﺭﺩﺭ ﺍﯾﺮﺍﻥ ﻭﻣﺤﯿﻂ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻣﺸﺎﺑﻪ ﻧﯿﺎﺯﻣﻨﺪ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﯾﺎﻓﺘﻪ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺍﺧﯿﺮ ﺩﺭ ﺍﯾﻦ ﺣﻮﺯﻩ ﻣﯽ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‬.
[Correction added on 29 December 2017, after first online publication:
The translated abstract has been updated for better readability in this
current version.]

‫ﮐﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﮐﻠﯿﺪﯼ‬

‫ ﺗﻤﺮﯾﻨﺎﺕ ﻧﻮﺷﺘﺎﺭﯼ‬،‫ ﻧﻮﺷﺘﺎﺭ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻭﺳﯿﻠﻪ‬،‫ ﺗﻤﺮﯾﻨﺎﺕ ﻧﻮﺷﺘﺎﺭ‬،‫ﮐﺘﺎﺑﻬﺎﯼ ﺩﺭﺳﯽ ﺍﻧﮕﻠﯿﺴﯽ‬

‫ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺵ ﻧﻮﺷﺘﺎﺭ‬،‫ﻣﮑﺎﻧﯿﮑﯽ‬

Int J Appl Linguist. 2017;1–28. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ijal © 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd 1
2 ALIAKBARI AND TARLANI‐ALIABADI

1 | I N T RO DU CT I O N

Learning English is in great demand in Iran and that is why English language teaching constitutes an integral part of the
country’ educational curriculum over the past eight decades. In consideration of this fact, it, may be of interest to
ESL/EFL professionals to gain insights into analyzing as well as teaching English textbook activities in general and
writing activities in particular in any EFL contexts. It is essential to mention that analysing textbook activities as they
are (as we did in this study) is quite distinct from what Littlejohn (2011: 181) terms “materials‐in‐action”
(e.g. Naghdipour, 2016). Previous literature both in Iran and outside has given attention to analysing textbook mate-
rials in various aspects such as functional analysis of the gender representation (Rifkin, 1998), the place of culture
(Aliakbari, 2002), the nature of grammar exercises (Aski, 2003), inconsistencies in teaching writing (Gates, 2003),
learning objectives (Riazi & Mosallanejad, 2010), language activities (Guilloteaux, 2013), authenticity (Clavel‐Arroitia
& Fuster‐Márquez, 2014) and text difficulty development (Tsai, 2015; Chen, 2016). Despite these attempts, little
research, if any, has reported investigation of different aspects of writing tasks in Iranian senior high school ELT text-
books developed under the auspices of Iran's Ministry of Education since 1979 (marking the establishment of the
Islamic Republic of Iran) and whether these aspects reflect universal SLA principles. The present study is, therefore,
an attempt to examine the extent to which a sample of Iranian ELT textbooks (see below Materials/textbooks) reflect
universal SLA principles using Littlejohn's (2011) task analysis schedule as an operational framework. Prior to this, a
note on Iranian senior high school English education is in order.

2 | B A C K G R O U N D T O I R A N I A N SE N I O R H I G H SC H O O L E N G L I S H
EDUCATION

Formal teaching of English in senior high school in Iran dates back to 1939 when the first senior high school English
series included three books for three years of the compulsory senior high school education. Foroozandeh and
Forouzani (2015) pointed out that the direct method (DM) and reading method (RM) with a variety of topics were
the guiding principles of these series.
In 1964 the country's education system underwent changes and consequently new series of Graded English1,
2, 3, and 4 were introduced which claimed to have followed the general trend of the 1960s to early 1970s spe-
cifically the situational language teaching, structuralism, aural‐visual and direct method. In 1987, the new series of
English 1, 2, 3, and 4 were introduced coinciding with an introduction of annual unit credit system into the
country's senior high school education system, a decade after Iran's Islamic revolution (Farhady & Hedayati,
2009). As a result, the senior high school education was reduced to three years and one additional educational
year named ‘pre‐university level’ was established whose purpose was to prepare senior high school students for
higher education (Safi, 2013). English Book 1 was introduced tentatively in 1991 with English Books 2, 3 being pro-
gressively introduced in the next years. To respond to the introduction of the pre‐university level, previously
named Graded English 4 (until 1987) or English 4 (until 1994) were removed from the senior high school pro-
gramme and replaced with English for pre‐university students 1 and 2 in a single volume. Long reading passages
together with several grammar points were included in this series to prepare students for the English section of
the National University Admission Examination.

3 | MATERIALS ANALYSIS AND SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION (SLA)

Over the last 20 years or so SLA has proved as a rich source of theories from which materials writers draw in deciding
to adopt a learning model. According to Cook (1998), the field of SLA has reached a stage of maturity where materials
ALIAKBARI AND TARLANI‐ALIABADI 3

design and evaluation can benefit from more input from its research. As a result, SLA principles could serve to explain
and critique materials design features by identifying the extent to which materials are “in harmony with how learners
learn” (Ellis, 1997: 78). Below is a list of universal SLA‐based principles for instructed SLA and materials design mainly
derived from Ellis (2005), Cook (1998), Richards (2006), Tomlinson (2010), and Tomlinson and Masuhara (2010).
Included in the list are both what supports language acquisition as well as what seems to be of limited use in language
acquisition (Adopted from Guilloteaux, 2013: 233).
What supports language acquisition?

• A predominant focus on meaning: mostly pragmatic meaning (i.e., what language forms convey in communica-
tion); but also semantic meaning (i.e., what language conveys, irrespective of context, when language is treated
as an object of study) (Ellis, 2005).
• Participation in communicative activities (Tomlinson & Masuhara, 2010) to boost learners’ implicit knowledge of
the L2 (Ellis, 2005).
• Focus on form (e.g., corrective feedback) and intensive focus on pre‐selected linguistic forms by an inductive
and/or deductive approach (Ellis, 2005; Li, 2010).
• Exposure to extensive language in use (Ellis, 2005; Tomlinson, 2010; Wong & VanPatten, 2003).

• Opportunities for free production of output of a clause or more, but not the type produced during controlled
practice exercises (Ellis, 2005; Tomlinson, 2010).
• Pair and group activities that promote interaction in the L2 (Lantolf, 2000; Long, 1996), but excessive use of the
L1 in monolingual contexts may actually hinder it (Ellis, 2005).

• Engaging learners affectively by providing relevant and interesting contents, and giving opportunities to express
their own meanings and choose their own topics (Richards, 2006; Tomlinson & Masuhara, 2010).
• Engaging learners cognitively in a variety of a learning activities (Ellis, 2005), and through high instructional clarity,
achievable challenges, awareness of different learning styles, and strategy training, including experiential and
learner training activities (Ellis, 2005; Richards, 2006; Tomlinson & Masuhara, 2010).

What seems to be of limited use in language acquisition?

• Mechanical drills requiring exclusive attention to form divorced from meaning (DeKeyser, 2010); mechanical drills
may even be of no use at all (Wong & VanPatten, 2003)

In the present paper, these principles as well as Ur's (1996) classification of writing activities (see ‘Types of writing
activities’ section below) were used to interpret the results of the analyses of the writing tasks carried out with
Littlejohn's (2011) task analysis sheet.

4 | T YP E S O F W RI T I N G A C TI V I TI E S

Within foreign language courses writing activities, according to Ur (1996: 163), are classified as writing as a means;
writing as an end; writing both as means and end. Writing activities in writing as a means are used as “convenient means
for engaging with aspects of language other than the writing itself” (Ur, 1996: 162). These activities are often used to
reinforce grammar, vocabulary, reading and speaking skills. In writing as an end, the writing itself is treated as the main
objective within foreign language courses. In this perspective, writing is practiced at both micro levels (handwriting or
typing, spelling, punctuation) and macro levels (content and organization). Learners are given exercises asking them to
use their own words to express themselves, state a purpose for writing and specify an audience. Writing activities in
writing both as a means and an end combine purposeful and original writing with the learning and practice of some
4 ALIAKBARI AND TARLANI‐ALIABADI

other skills or content. For instance, when learners are asked to write anecdotes to illustrate the meanings of idioms,
they are actually combining writing with vocabulary practice.

5 | T HE ST U D Y

5.1 | Materials/textbooks
The materials for the present study included all writing tasks written under the auspices of the Ministry of Edu-
cation for Iranian students in senior high schools and pre‐university levels from 1979 onwards. Three different
series of English textbooks were found to be introduced by Iran's Ministry of Education: Graded English 1, 2, 3
and 4 (1979–1986); English 1, 2, 3, and 4 (1987–1993) and English Books 1, 2, 3, and English for pre‐university
students 1 and 2 (1994–2016). Our pilot study of the structure of the lessons in each textbook series written for
each grade revealed that the type as well as the number of language activities in each series written within the periods
identified above remained almost the same. Of these series, Graded English 1 (A), Graded English 3 (B), Graded English 4
(C) English book 1 (D), English book 2 (E), English book 3 (F), English for pre‐university students (1 & 2) (1994–2003) (G)
were found to contain 113 writing tasks (see Appendix A for sample pages about Iranian senior high school English
textbooks).

5.2 | Materials analysis instrument

Littlejohn's (2011) framework is composed of three levels of analysis with Level 1 assessing the physical aspects of the
materials, Level 2 analyzing each textbook activity in detail and Level 3 requiring the deduction of what is implied
regarding the syllabus and the teachers’ and learners’ roles. Level 2 is of particular interest in this paper due to the
focus on learning tasks as units of analysis. It enables analysts to describe every teaching/learning task included in
a textbook and consists of three parts: What is the learner expected to do? (dealing with learners’ role, activity focus,
and broad cognitive processes involved); Who with? (dealing with participation structure/interaction); With what con-
tent? (dealing with input/output types). Informed by SLA research, these three areas can serve to assess the extent to
which materials may support students’ language learning (Guilloteaux, 2013). The rationale behind the choice of
Littlejohn's (2011) task analysis sheet is that it provides the basis for a comprehensive listing of the aspects of text-
book activities as they are (which is suitably in line with the purpose of this paper). Moreover, this task analysis sheet
has been extensively used in the related literature (e.g., Guilloteaux, 2013; Sahragard, Rahimi, & Zaremoayeddi, 2009)
to evaluate the extent to which textbook activities reflect universal SLA theories and principles.

5.3 | Interview informants

One key official and one ELT material developer in the Center for Writing Textbooks and Planning National Curricula
under the auspices of Iran's Ministry of Education were interviewed in the present study. To choose the interview
informants, we used criteria developed by Morse (1998). Morse (1998) points out that the interviewees should pos-
sess the necessary knowledge and experience of the issue or object at their disposal so that they can provide infor-
mative answers to interview questions. The key official was one of the most experienced members involved in
educational planning and a significant mediator among different departments as well as high‐ranking officials, councils
and organizations for the purpose of material development over three past decades. The ELT material developer had a
significant place in developing English textbooks since 1990. She was also a practicing EFL teacher who had found her
way into the usually difficult‐to‐get‐into textbook development department of the Ministry.1 The following two
questions were asked of the two interviewees:

1. How are macro‐level policies handed on to curriculum planners? Is there an official document for developing ELT
materials?
ALIAKBARI AND TARLANI‐ALIABADI 5

2. Who chooses and screens material developers? What are the criteria? What qualifications are expected from
them?

5.4 | Procedure and data analysis

Data were collected in 2015 beginning from June and ending in October. First, an official letter was handed to the head of
the Center for Writing Textbooks and Planning National Curricula in order to allow us to have complete access to all text-
books as well as to make appointments with the interviewees. After the official's as well as the ELT material developer's
consent was obtained, the interviews were carried out in Persian, audiotaped, transcribed and translated into English.
We were aware of the possible translation dilemmas raised by Temple and Young (2004). As extremely experienced users
and teachers of English and also fluent speakers of both English and Persian languages, we were confident that we could
represent the authentic perceptions of the interviewees. Also, we implemented a system of query response and cross‐
checking to secure the most valid translations. Notes were taken during the interviews followed by their immediate tran-
scriptions. The interviews were open‐ended. In order to identify the consistent, common, and dominant explanations
across their answers for each item, the interviewees’ answers to each interview question were cross‐compared.
All writing tasks were identified according to Littlejohn's (2011) definition of task as any activity that facilitates
learning. Therefore, all writing activities, exercises and drills identified in the textbooks were conceived as writing tasks.
Moreover, to examine which activity types predominated in our sample, Paulston's (1972) classification of language
activities (later modified by Aski, 2003) was used. Paulston (1972) proposed a classification of language learning activ-
ities which consisted of mechanical drills, meaningful drills, and communicative drills. This classification is based on the
degree to which meaning is processed and negotiated. Aski (2003) later added another category namely, communica-
tive language practice to this classification. The researchers carried out the analysis of writing tasks independently with
one assistant (an ELT teacher as well as a researcher). The assistant was trained by the researchers in a three‐hour ses-
sion on applying Littlejohn's (2011) framework for materials analysis, in general, and his task analysis sheet in particular.
Then, the identified writing tasks were analyzed independently in a separate session. The results were then compared
in plenary and features were finalized and illustrated with typical examples. To obtain frequency counts (see Appendix B
for raw data) and percentage indexes of the features, the researchers and the assistant analyzed each task indepen-
dently. The researchers themselves coded 100% of the writing tasks once and entered the tallies into an SPSS file
(IBM, Armonk, NY). They, then, analyzed 100% of the data some time later. Intra‐ and inter‐rater reliabilities were esti-
mated with Cohen's Kappa at 0.96 and 0.82, respectively. According to Landis and Koch (1977: 165), these reliability
estimates represent “almost perfect” agreement. In order to compare the obtained results with SLA principles, those
writing tasks whose features and aspects were in line with SLA principles were awarded plus points (+) and those
whose features were not compatible with SLA principles received minus points (‐).

6 | RESULTS A ND DIS CUS SION

In this section we first describe the analysis of the writing tasks identified in the sampled textbooks based on
Littlejohn's (2011) three‐part task analysis sheet: what is the learner expected “to do?”, “who with?”, and “with what
contents?”. To discuss the findings actual writing task examples are cited from each textbook.2 Then the results of
the interview with the key official and the ELT material developer are presented.

6.1 | Textbook analysis findings

6.1.1 | What is the learner expected to do?
“What is the learner expected to do during the writing tasks?” consists of three subcomponents which allow us to
delineate what precisely learners have to do the tasks: turn‐take, focus and mental operation. With reference to
turn‐take which refers to the role the learners should have while accomplishing a learning task, it was found that none
of the tasks provided opportunities for the students to initiate language to express what they wish in their writing.
6 ALIAKBARI AND TARLANI‐ALIABADI

This, therefore, neglected one SLA principle which calls for engaging learners affectively by giving them opportunities
to express their own meanings and choose their own topics (Richards, 2006; Tomlinson & Masuhara, 2010). All of the
writing tasks (i.e. 100%), as illustrated in the following writing task examples, required the students to produce
responses directed largely by the language supplied in the tasks:

Writting task 1 (B)

Study the following pattern and write the exercise.
1. IT + BE + Complement: Adverb/Adjective phrase

Exercise: Make five sentences with pattern 1.

Writting task 2 (A)

Read the following paragraph about Shiraz and write similar paragraphs about
a. Ahvaz
b. New York

Shiraz: Shiraz is a city in Iran. It is a small plain in the south. The number of people living in this city is about
324,290. The distance form Shiraz to Tehran is 919 kilometers.
a. Ahvaz ………………. Iran. ……………………… Karun river ……………………. southwest. ……………………………………
256,633. …………………….. Tehran …………………… 898 kilometers.
b. New York …………………… the USA. ……………………… Atlantic Ocean ………… east coast. ………………………. about 8
million. ………………………… Washington ………………………………. 250 miles.
Writting task 3 (G)
Combine the two sentences, using “ing” or “ed” structures. You may rewrite them in more than one way.
Example: A man was arrested by the police. What was his name?
What was the name of the man who was arrested by the police?

In these writing tasks, the students are required to produce restricted responses. No new information is being
exchanged and the learners do not generate or negotiate their own meaning in original constructions. Therefore, such
writing tasks are not authentic or communicative and, not helpful in terms of supporting students’ writing learning.
According to Ortega (2009), restricted practice of this type will only support language learning as long as it is mean-
ingful and follows the provision of relevant declarative knowledge such as explanations.
Table 1 indicates the learners’ focus of attention during tasks. 93.80% of the writing tasks drew the students’
attention to the rules or patterns of language particularly Textbooks D, E, F and G which contained 86.72% of the
whole tasks. Consider the following tasks from Textbooks D, E, F and G:

Writting task 4 (D)

Form comparisons using – er than.
Example: the red car, the blue car, fast
The red car is faster than the blue car.
Writting task 5 (E)
Put these words in the correct order.
Example: see, the president, want, to, I
I want to see the president.
Writting task 6 (F)
Write the correct form of the verbs in parentheses.
ALIAKBARI AND TARLANI‐ALIABADI 7

TABLE 1 Percentage and frequency of tasks having aspects of focus

Textbooks
A (Frq) B (Frq) C (Frq) D (Frq) E (Frq) F (Frq) G (Frq) Total
I. What is the learner expected to do? (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Frq (%)

b. Focus
(+) Language system: focus on rules 1 3 4 22 21 16 39 106
or patterns
0.89 2.65 3.54 19.47 18.58 14.16 34.51 93.80
(+) Meaning: a focus on the message 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
of the language being used
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(+)Meaning/system/form relationship: 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 6
a focus on the relationship 0 4.42 0.89 0 0 0 0 5.31
between form and meaning
(+) Organizational structure 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0.89 0 0 0 0 0 0.89

Notes: Frq: Frequency, Prct: Percentage. Graded English 1 (A); Graded English 3 (B); Graded English 4 (C) English book 1 (D);
English book 2 (E); English book 3 (F); English for pre‐university students (1 & 2) (1994–2003) (G).

Example: These sentences (should write) in your notebooks.

These sentences should be written in your notebooks.
Writting task 7 (G)
Respond to the statements by using “so” or “neither”.
Example: Ants are insects. So are (bees).

In the writing tasks above the students are asked to produce grammatically correct sentences by attending to the
form of the language. Little meaning (if any) is exchanged. Compared against Ur's (1996) types of writing activities,
these tasks are of “writing‐as‐a‐means” activities which help students learn only new grammar points. According to
Wong and VanPatten (2003) and DeKeyser (2010), such tasks are of limited use or no use at all in language acquisition
since they expose students to excessive decontextualization of forms presented and practiced in isolated sentences.
Directing the students’ attention predominantly towards the meaning of the language has received no attention in the
textbooks, thereby lagging behind an SLA principle which calls for a predominant focus on meaning (e.g., Ellis, 2005).
5.31% of the writing tasks in Textbooks B (4.42% of the whole tasks) and C (0.89% of the tasks) both in period (1979–
1986) were found to focus students’ attention to both form and meaning of the language as the following tasks
indicate:

Writting task 8 (B)

The teacher will read a paragraph to you three times. Listen carefully each time. Then, write as much as you can
remember. Stay as close as you can to what you hear. Don’t write while the teacher is reading.

Writting task 9 (C)

Students listen to a short text by the teacher. Then they write what they have heard. They should keep as close as
possible to what they hear.

The tasks above draw the students’ attention to both form and meaning of the text by requiring them to repro-
duce more or less exactly the same final product. Despite this, these tasks are, still, restricted in language and contents
since the students have no more choices than using the same language and contents given by the teacher to recon-
struct the text.
8 ALIAKBARI AND TARLANI‐ALIABADI

Finally, only one task (writing task 10 below) from Textbook B (0.89% of the whole tasks) directed the learners’
attention predominantly toward organizational structure of the composition to produce a text based on a model or
a basic rhetorical frame:

Writting task 10 (B)

Writing explanations:
When somebody explains something, he usually begins with a clear topic sentence. Then he adds sentences which
contain certain details, he also uses especial words as bridges between the sentences. For example, then, also,
therefore, however, since, and, but, finally, besides, etc. “The United Nations” is a sample of this kind of writing.
It is a brief explanation of what the United Nations organization is. It begins with a strong sentence and four main
points. Then one paragraph is written for each point. The explanation ends with a conclusion.
Exercise
Use lesson 5 as a model for your composition, explain the topic “sports and world peace”. Read the introductory
paragraph and complete the others.

Introduction
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
1. You should fight well.
2. You should do your best.
Fighting well …
Doing your best …..

Conclusion

Compared against Ur's (1996) categorization of writing activities, this writing task is categorized as both “as‐a‐
means” and “as‐an‐end” writing task, which creates opportunities for students to practice their writing both at a micro
level, i.e. handwriting or typing, spelling, punctuation, and a macro level, i.e. content and organization. The striking
imbalance between the number of the tasks which focus on form and those which require the students to attend
to the meaning of language reflects the textbook developers’ (as well as that of the Ministry of education) preference
for a structural approach in Iranian ELT programs.

TABLE 2 Percentage and frequency of tasks having aspects of operation

Textbooks
A (Frq) B (Frq) C (Frq) D (Frq) E (Frq) F(Frq) G (Frq) Total
I. What is the learner expected to do? (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Frq (%)

c. Operation
(+) Apply a stated language rule to produce 0 0 0 18 15 11 35 79
sentences 0 0 0 15.93 13.27 9.73 30.97 69.91
(‐) Repeat with substitution 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 4
0 2.65 0 0.89 0 0 0 3.54
(+) Repeat/ reproduce a text identically 1 5 4 0 0 0 0 10
0.89 4.48 3.57 0 0 0 0 8.85
(+) Repeat a text with expansion 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0.89 0 0 0 0 0 0.89
(+) Repeat/ reproduce a sentence with 0 0 0 3 6 5 4 18
transformation 0 0 0 2.68 5.31 4.42 3.54 16.93
(+) Complete a text with recalled items 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0.89 0 0 0 0 0.89

Notes: Frq: Frequency, Prct: Percentage. Graded English 1 (A); Graded English 3 (B); Graded English 4 (C) English book 1 (D);
English book 2 (E); English book 3 (F); English for pre‐university students (1 & 2) (1994–2003) (G).
ALIAKBARI AND TARLANI‐ALIABADI 9

The third subcomponent, mental operation, deals with the involvement of learners’ mental processes while doing
the tasks. As shown in Table 2. 69.91% of the tasks (all belonging to the 1994–2016 period) required the learners to
apply a given stated language rule and produce grammatical sentences. Given this, these tasks focused learners’
attention exclusively on language forms, all divorced from meaning:
Writting task 11 (D)
Make questions with have or has
Example: you / eat lunch Have you eaten lunch?
Writting task 12 (E)
Complete these sentences. Use the words given in parentheses. Add words of your own necessary.
Example: If you don’t wash fruits before eating them, you will get sick (get sick).
Writting task 13 (F)
Make sentences with the words given. Then answer the questions.
Example: possible / you / read / in a dark room
Is it possible for you to read in a dark room?
No, it isn’t possible for you to read in a dark room.
Writting task 14 (G)
Answer the following questions.
Example: Why didn’t you let him go out? (have a cold).
I’d have let him go out if he hadn’t had a cold.

Tasks of these types provide opportunities for students to acquire a repertoire of a rule‐based competence, one
of the general principles of SLA advocated by Ellis (2005). However, Schmidt (1994, 2001) warns us that attention to
language forms should not be done for the sole purpose of students’ awareness of grammatical rules. Rather, forms
should occur in the rich input to which learners are exposed. DeKeyser (2010) believed that these types of tasks
are of limited use in language acquisition due to their required exclusive focus on form.
Furthermore, in 3.54% of the tasks the students were asked to repeat basic grammatical patterns while substitut-
ing certain items with other given items to produce grammatical sentences with Textbook B containing 2.65% and
Textbook D containing 0.89% of the whole tasks. Consider the following tasks from Textbooks B and D:

Writting task 15 (B)

Study the following pattern and write the exercise.
9IT + BE + Complement: Adverb/Adjective Phrase

S (IT) V(BE) C(Adj)

It Is cold.

It will be nice.

Exercise: Make five sentences with pattern above.

10 ALIAKBARI AND TARLANI‐ALIABADI

Such writing tasks as 15 and 16 may be called substitution drills which help students practice new language gram-
mar points. They present a sentence as a model and require learners to repeat the basic pattern by replacing one or
more words. For example, with reference to writing task 16 whether the students are supposed to be discussing a pic-
ture of a school or are supposed to be actually looking at a school, we cannot imagine anyone saying, “What is it?”
Rather, one might say, “What is that?” (if the scene is outside) or “What is this (the picture supposed to be)?” When
someone would say, “What is it?”, they might say it if someone handed you something and you were looking at it
and really didn’t know what ‘it’ actually was. But we cannot imagine even one scenario where someone would say
“What is it?” while looking at a school (either in picture form or an actual school). These types of tasks end up promot-
ing phony grammar that never actually occurs, which, in fact, may defeat the intended purpose.
Also, 8.85% of the whole tasks required the students to repeat/reproduce exactly what is presented to them by
the teacher in the form of a text. Textbooks A, B and C, all belonging to the period 1979–1986, contained 0.89% (see
writing Task 2 above), 4.48% and 3.57% of these tasks, respectively:

Writting task 17 (B)

The teacher will read a paragraph to you three times. Listen carefully each time. Then, write as much as you can
remember. Stay as close as you can to what you hear. Don’t write while the teacher is reading.

Writting task 18 (C)

The teacher dictates a short text to the students. Students write it down while paying attention to the capitaliza-
tion, punctuation and good handwriting.

Exact repetition or reproduction of what is presented to students provides them with practice about the capital-
ization, punctuation and their handwriting. It does not create opportunities for students for freer production of writ-
ten output advocated by Ellis (2005) and Tomlinson (2010). Only 0.89% of the tasks (i.e. one task in Textbook B) gave
a composition outline and required the students to use that outline as a frame to produce a text (see writing task 10).
This task was the only writing task which provided opportunities for freer production of extended output. However,
the task is still of limited help to acquisition since its topic and overall structure was determined previously by the
writers of the textbook. Ellis (1999) suggests that learners’ control of the discourse topic ensures interaction beneficial
to acquisition.
16.93% of the tasks asked the learners to repeat/reproduce sentences while transforming based on given gram-
matical rules with Textbook D containing 2.68%, Textbook E containing 5.31%, Book F containing 4.42% and G con-
taining 3.54% of the whole tasks all in period 1994‐2016. The following examples fromTextbooks D and E indicate this:

Writting task 19 (D)

Example: I see a table. It is made of stone.
I see a stone table.

Writting task 20 (E)

Combine these sentences using “because”.
Example: John answered all the questions correctly. He studied very hard.
John answered all the questions correctly because he had studied very hard.

Finally 0.89 % of the tasks (i.e. one task in Textbook C) required the students to complete a text with recalled
items.

Writting task 21 (C)

III.2 Fill‐in the blanks
The students listen to the teacher while looking at the appropriate exercise in their books and filling in the blanks.
ALIAKBARI AND TARLANI‐ALIABADI 11

Later the words are written on the board and their students correct their writing.
The two …. statues that Michaelangelo …. were David and Moses. David is a statue of an Israeli boy who …. and a giant
warrior. It is six …. tall, but his boy is ….. like that of a ….. boy. Michaelangelo's statue of Moses, who …. the Israeli …. out
of …. is in ….. Moses is ….. and has two ….. from …. under his …. Arm. His face ….. that he is very …. … and the … of his
body ……. us that he will soon …. the tables.

We argue that this task is, in fact, a convenient means for reinforcing learners’ knowledge of vocabulary rather
than the writing itself.

6.1.2 | Who with?

With regard to With Who or the participation structure recommended by or inferred from the writing task instructions,
we found that all the writing tasks required the students to do them individually and not in collaboration with other
learners. The following writing task is one sample writing task from the analyzed textbooks:

Writting task 22 (F)

Write five of the things you are going to do.
Example: I am going to play football on Friday.

This finding shows that the authors of the selected textbook have not given importance to group work in the text-
books. This echoes Jeon (2005) who found that 80% of activities in Korean high school textbooks involved individual
work. Ellis (2005) points out that incorporating a small group work into a lesson is a key which ensures the right kind of
interaction for acquisition. He believes that once learners interact amongst themselves, acquisition‐rich discourse is
more likely to ensue.

6.1.3 | With what contents?

The results concerning the contents of the tasks assigned to the learners are presented in Tables 3 and 4. In terms of
input and its form, all of the writing tasks consisted predominantly of written sentences, or rule‐based examples to
provide more practice in the language. The input provided in this way may not be helpful to SLA acquisition since
as, Wong and VanPatten (2003) argue, input is not an explanation of rules or forms. Rather, it is meaning‐based lan-
guage which allows learners’ internal mechanisms to establish connections between formal features of language and
the meanings they encode. Only 1.78% of the tasks belonging to the period (1979–1986) were presented in extended
written discourse (see writing task 20 above). 8.85% of the tasks belonging to the period (1979–1986) presented
themselves in extended aural discourse all dictated by the teacher in the classroom. Finally, 2.68% of the tasks belong-
ing to the period 1994‐2016 were presented graphically to the students as shown in the following task:

The low percentage of graphic input (i.e., 2.68%) in these textbooks shows the absence of writing tasks accom-
panied with illustrative pictures, diagrams, photos which could otherwise provide visual contexts for the learners to
write in their own words. In terms of source of the input, 92.04% of the tasks came from the textbooks whereas only
7.96% of the tasks (all belonging to the period 1979–1986) had to be presented by the teacher. No writing tasks were
found to require personal input from the learners to increase their motivation.
12 ALIAKBARI AND TARLANI‐ALIABADI

TABLE 3 Percentage and frequency of tasks having aspects from: “with what contents?” (Input to learners)
Textbooks
II. With what A (Frq) B (Frq) C (Frq) D (Frq) E (Frq) F (Frq) G (Frq) Total
contents? (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (Frq) (%)

a. Input to learners
1. form
(+) Written extended 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2
discourse > 50 words 0.89 0.89 0 0 0 0 0 1.78
(+) Aural extended 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 10
discourse > 50 words 0 4.42 4.42 0 0 0 0 8.85
(+) Written 0 3 0 21 20 15 39 98
sentences < 50 words 0 2.65 0 18.58 17.80 13.27 34.51 86.72
(+) Graphic 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 3
0 0 0 0.89 1.78 0.89 0 2.68
2. source (+) Materials 1 4 1 22 21 16 39 104
0.89 3.54 0.89 19.47 18.58 14.16 34.51 92.04
(+) Teacher 0 5 4 0 0 0 0 9
0 4.42 3.54 0 0 0 0 7.96
3. nature (+) Non‐fiction 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 3
0.89 0.89 0.89 0 0 0 0 2.68
(+) Metalinguistic comment 0 3 0 22 21 16 39 101
0 2.65 0 19.47 18.58 14.16 34.51 89.38

Notes: Frq: Frequency, Prct: Percentage. Graded English 1 (A); Graded English 3 (B); Graded English 4 (C) English book 1 (D);
English book 2 (E); English book 3 (F); English for pre‐university students (1 & 2) (1994–2003) (G).

TABLE 4 Percentage of tasks having aspects from “with what contents?” (Expected output from learners)
II. With what
Textbooks
contents?
A B C D E F G Total
b. Expected output (Frq) (Frq) (Frq) (Frq) (Frq) (Frq) (Frq) (Frq)
from learners (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

1. form
(+) Written extended 0 6 4 0 0 0 0 10
discourse > 50 words 0 5.31 3.54 0 0 0 0 8.85
(+) Written sentences 0 3 0 17 17 15 30 82
< 50 words 0 2.65 0 15.04 15.04 13.27 26.56 72.57
(+) Linguistic items 1 0 1 5 4 1 9 21
(e.g., words, phrases) 0.89 0 0.89 4.42 3.54 0.89 7.96 18.58
2. source (+) Materials 1 4 1 22 21 16 39 104
0.89 3.54 4.42 19.47 18.58 14.16 34.51 92.04
(+) Teacher 0 5 4 0 0 0 0 9
0 4.42 3.54 0 0 0 0 7.96
3. nature (+) Non‐Fiction 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0.89 0 0 0 0 0 0.89
(+) Linguistic items 1 3 1 22 21 16 39 102
(e.g., words, phrases 0.89 2.65 0.89 19.47 18. 58 14.16 34.51 90.26
and sentences)

Notes: Frq: Frequency, Prct: Percentage. Graded English 1 (A); Graded English 3 (B); Graded English 4 (C) English book 1 (D);
English book 2 (E); English book 3 (F); English for pre‐university students (1 & 2) (1994–2003) (G).

In terms of the nature of the input 89.38% of the tasks, (2.65% in period 1979–1986 and 86.73% belonging to
the period 1994–2016) were in the form of metalinguistic comments. Consider the following example from
Textbook B:
ALIAKBARI AND TARLANI‐ALIABADI 13

Writting task 24 (B)

Study the following pattern and write the exercise.
IT + BE + Complement: Adverb/Adjective Phrase

S (IT) V(BE) C(Adj)

It Is cold.

It will be nice.

Exercise: Make five sentences with pattern above.

The above writing task is in the form of a grammatical rule which requires the students to make sentences with a
given pattern. Writing of this type is a substitution drill not a writing task. 2.68% of the tasks all belonging to the
period 1979–1986 were non‐fiction. It is essential to note that the nature of 7.96% of the tasks all in period
1979–1986 could not be identified since they had to be brought to the classroom by the teacher. Wong and
VanPatten (2003) point out that the type of input learners need for acquisition should be meaning‐based or commu-
nicative in nature rather than a substitution drill.
Table 4 indicates that the most common type of required output found in the textbooks was of the restricted and
controlled kind, i.e. production of grammatically correct sentences, which constituted 72.57% of the whole tasks:

Writting task 25 (E)

Put these words in the correct order.
Example: see, the president, want, to, I
I want to see the president.
Writting task 26 (G)
Make sentences beginning with “Having …’
Example: After Mary had done all her shopping, she went home.
Having done all her shopping, Mary went home.

Such writing tasks as 25 and 26 require students to produce output in the form of individual sentences and help
learners practice grammar points. It, therefore, is a writing as‐a‐means task type. Output of this nature goes against
Swain's (1985) and Gass's (1997) assertion that output is part of a communicative interaction and may not even
involve the production of a form in question. Ellis (2005) believes that these types of tasks do not afford students
opportunities for the kind of sustained output necessary for interlanguage development. These tasks, in fact, do
not create opportunities for extended and sustained output where the learner is able to express messages clearly
and explicitly, what Swain (1985) has called ‘pushed output’. 18.58% of the tasks asked the students to complete muti-
lated texts or sentences with recalled items or correct forms of given words as the following writing task indicates:

Writting task 27 (E)

Complete the following dialogue with the correct form of the verbs given.
go, do, stay, be, rain
Example: What are you going to do on Friday morning?
I don’t like to stay at home. I will go for a walk if it does not rain.

Only 8.85% of the whole tasks belonging to the period 1979–1986 required the students to write in extended
discourse but with contents (0.89% of the tasks) or language and contents (7.96% of the tasks) previously determined
by the teacher or by the task themselves. For example, consider writing tasks 10 and 19 above which are still of lim-
ited help for the students to write effectively since they robbed them of expressing themselves in their own words
14 ALIAKBARI AND TARLANI‐ALIABADI

and language. With reference to the source of output, 92.04% of the tasks had their output sources determined
already by the tasks themselves and 7.96% chosen by the teacher. This means the learners were given no opportunity
to express their personal information or opinions in their writing.
In terms of the nature of the output, 90.26% of the tasks were in the form of linguistic items whereas 0.89% of
the tasks were non‐fiction. Consider the following tasks:

Writting task 28 (D)

Write the correct form of the verbs in parentheses.
Example: Javad answered all the questions easily yesterday. (answer)

Writting task 29 (G)

Complete these sentences with “too” or “enough” and a word from the box.

big seats time young busy

Example: We haven’t enough time tonight. Let's finish it tomorrow.

Writing tasks of this type which restrict students’ writing experience in English to the word‐or‐phrase‐level are
means for engaging them with aspects of language other than the writing itself. The nature of 8.85% of the tasks
belonging to the period 1979–1986 could not be identified since they were to be brought to the classroom by the
teacher.
All 113 writing tasks were also analyzed to determine which activity types predominated in our samples (Table 5).
Mechanical drills (e.g., writing task 30) were found to be the most frequent writing tasks (47.79%) in the textbooks
with meaningful drills (e.g., writing task 31) and communicative drills (e.g., writing task 32) constituting 30.96% and
21.25% of the whole tasks, respectively:

Writting task 30 (E)

Combine these sentences using “because”.

TABLE 5 Types of writing tasks for each textbook

Communicative
Textbooks Mechanical drill % Meaningful drill % Communicative drill % language practice % Total %

A 1 0 0 0 1
0.89 0 0 0 0.89
B 3 5 1 0 9
2.65 4.42 0.89 0 7.96
C 0 5 0 0 5
0 4.42 0 0 4.42
D 7 6 9 0 22
6.19 5.31 7.96 0 19.47
E 11 3 7 0 21
9.73 2.65 6.19 0 18. 58
F 5 6 5 0 16
4.42 5.31 4.42 0 14.16
G 27 10 2 0 39
23.89 8.85 1.78 0 34.51
Total 54 35 24 0 113
47.79 30.96 21.25 0 100

Notes: Frq: Frequency, Prct: Percentage. Graded English 1 (A); Graded English 3 (B); Graded English 4 (C) English book 1 (D);
English book 2 (E); English book 3 (F); English for pre‐university students (1 & 2) (1994–2003) (G).
ALIAKBARI AND TARLANI‐ALIABADI 15

Example: John answered all the questions correctly. He studied very hard.
John answered all the questions correctly because he had studied very hard.

Writting task 31 (D)

Complete these sentences. Follow the model.
Model: Tabriz is bigger than Shiraz. (big, small)
Writing task 32 (F)
Write some sentences about yourself. Use the words “like, enjoy, prefer, tired, interested”.
Example: I like to learn English.

In writing task 30, the learners simply manipulate the form (adding had) without any regard for meaning while
focusing their attention exclusively on form. To do writing task 31, they need to understand the meanings of input
to produce output. In this task there is only one correct answer and all the learners know the correct answer and
no new information is being exchanged. This makes the task simply a pattern practice. Writing task 32 asks the
students to produce output which is new and unknown to the person presenting the prompt but the task still has a
formulaic and highly structured format (i.e. the students have to use only the given words). The most glaring result
of the analysis is the absence of communicative language practice activities in the textbooks. These structurally free
activities require students to attend to meaning in order to generate form and give them the opportunity to negotiate
meaning. The preponderance of mechanical drills in the textbooks is due to the dominance of the structural approach
and the grammar translation method in Iran's mainstream education system. This finding lends support to Riazi (2005),
Jahangard (2007), Hayati and Mashhadi (2010) that revealed structural properties and English grammar are the main
features of English classes in Iran.
These findings are also supported by Aski's (2003) examination of the nature of two grammar points in a selection
of Italian texts in light of research in SLA. According to Nunan (1999), drills have a place in the classroom but that they
may not be sufficient in and of themselves. Wong and VanPatten (2003) contend that, the use of drills to ‘cause’
acquisition is to put the cart (production) before the horse (input). Swain (1985) and Gass (1997) do not advocate drills
or drill‐like practice. They, rather, argue for opportunities for learners to engage in self‐expression as part of commu-
nication. More recently, DeKeyser (2010) has brought to attention the arguments against practice in the ‘drill and kill’
sense of audiolingual methodology. Tomlinson (2008) suggests that what ELT materials need to do is to provide lots of
opportunities for the learners to actually use language to achieve intentions.

6.2 | Interview findings

The results of the interview revealed that curriculum planners use what are generally called ‘grand documents’ as their
starting points in all their educational policymaking and planning. Grand documents include: (1) Imam Khomeini's
directions, instructions and views; (2) Ayatollah Khamenei's recommendations, instructions and views; (3) Iran's
constitution; (4) documents approved by High Council of Cultural Revolution; (5) educational policies set by High
Council of Education; and (6) National Document of Education and National Curriculum (NC). Both interviewees
believed that the officials in the Ministry of Education use grand documents for curricula planning purposes. The
official in the Center for Writing Textbooks and Planning National Curricula believed that the professional knowledge
of material developers should be well accompanied by their commitment and loyalty to Islam and Islamic revolution.
The ELT material developer reported that there has not been and still is not an ELT‐specific document in Iran at senior
high school and pre‐university levels and the activities of ELT curriculum planning center on the goals set by High
Council of Cultural Revolution and High Council of Education. She added that the material developers were held
responsible to produce materials aimed at primarily fostering reading ability because High Council of Cultural
Revolution determined the purpose of English education in the country as ‘enabling students to read technical texts
in universities’ hence adopting a “reading method”. The following comment expresses this clearly:3
16 ALIAKBARI AND TARLANI‐ALIABADI

We were not given any ELT‐specific documents according to which we began to write the textbooks. Actually, there
was not such an ELT‐specific document although English language teaching was an integral part of the education sys-
tem of the country. We had to begin writing the textbooks based on what we thought the textbooks should look like.

The materials developer pointed out that no information from needs analysis research was taken into account in
developing exercises and activities in the textbooks. Also, the official in the center believed that due to its centralized
nature, the education system of Iran does not have enough flexibility to cater for students’ needs and interests:

No nationwide student needs analysis has ever been done. I do not think there has ever been a need to do so. If we
did that, we would have to develop different series of high school English books for the same level because of the
large number of students with varying needs. And doing this is not possible due to the centralized nature of the
education system in the country.

All English textbooks for the senior high school and the pre‐university level (developed since 1979) have been
written based on the authors’ practical experiences as well as their perceptions of English language teaching and
learning principles. Both interviewees pointed out that teachers have never been consulted in making ELT curriculum
decisions and materials development. The materials developer said:

None of us thought of doing such a thing, i.e. asking teachers for their opinions in developing materials. Such a thing
may not be at all possible to do even if it occurred to any of us. The reason is that we would come across different
sets of opinions due to the large number of teachers in the country. And it would not be possible to take them all into
account.

These results are in line with Kiany, Mirhosseini, and Navidinia (2010) and Davari and Aghagolzadeh (2015) who
found no formal documents specific to English language, whether national or educational, despite the fact that
language‐in‐education policy has been one of the key mechanisms for implementing educational language policies
in Iran. Moreover, this finding lent support for Atai and Mazlum (2013) that indicated the lack of any specific ELT
documents for material development and absence of research‐based needs assessment as the foundation of the
programmes.

7 | CONCLUSION AND PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS

Our findings revealed that the writers of the textbooks adopted a traditional focus‐on‐forms approach for their
writing tasks, hence neglecting important methodological options that SLA theories have suggested. This resulted
in the abundance of ‘focused tasks’ (Ellis, 2005) or writing‐as‐a‐means tasks which required the learners to apply given
grammatical structures to produce correct structures in performing them. No writing‐as‐an‐end tasks were found to
provide opportunities for the learners to use the language to express their own personal meanings. This, thus,
neglected a key requirement for interaction (Johnson, 1995) which fosters acquisition (Long, 1996).
The present study was limited in a number of ways. Given the lack of access to the English textbooks written
before 1979, only post‐revolutionary English textbooks could be examined in this study. It was further limited in that
due to the labour intensive nature of the analysis only writing tasks were chosen to be analyzed. Despite these lim-
itations, the findings offer sound pedagogical implications useful for both Iranian context and beyond. Teachers
and/or textbook developers must understand and embrace the findings of SLA research and indicate a preference
for materials that reflect these findings. ELT programmes should be built upon a systematic, research‐based locally
tuned document and teachers’ views and suggestions and learner needs analysis projects at all levels of education.
Moreover to support second language writing acquisition, L2 writing pedagogy in Iran and similar contexts need to
ALIAKBARI AND TARLANI‐ALIABADI 17

be reevaluated in the light of more recent breakthroughs in writing scholarship and communicative writing tasks
eliciting extended written output with topics decided on by the students or both by students and the teacher should
be included in the textbooks.

ENDNOTES
1
It is to be noted that we obtained written permission to publish the interviewees’ comments in this journal.
2
It is necessary to note that the researchers got written permission from Iran's Center for Writing Textbooks and Planning
National Curricula to reprint the tasks cited from each textbook in this journal.
3
It is necessary to note that all of the discourse examples are translations from Persian.

ORCID
Hassan Tarlani‐Aliabadi http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1521-3765

RE FE R ENC ES
Aliakbari, M. (2002). Culture in ELT texts in Iran. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Isfahan.
Aski, J. M. (2003). Foreign language textbook activities: Keeping pace with second language acquisition research. Foreign
Language Annals, 36(1), 57–65.
Atai, M. R., & Mazlum, F. (2013). English language teaching curriculum in Iran: planning and practice. The Curriculum Journal,
24(3), 389–411.
Chen, A. C. H. (2016). A critical evaluation of text difficulty development in ELT textbook series: A corpus‐based approach
using variability neighbor clustering. System, 58, 64–81.
Clavel‐Arroitia, B., & Fuster‐Márquez, M. (2014). The authenticity of real texts in advanced English language textbooks. ELT
Journal, 68(2), 124–134.
Cook, V. (1998). Relating SLA research to language teaching materials. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics (CJAL)/Revue
Canadienne de Linguistique Applique´e (RCLA), 1(1–2), 9–27.
Davari, H., & Aghagolzadeh, F. (2015). To teach or not to teach? Still an open question for the Iranian education system. In C.
Kennedy (Ed.), English language teaching in the Islamic Republic of Iran: Innovations, trends and challenges (pp. 13–19).
London: British Council.
DeKeyser, R. (2010). Practice for second language learning: Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. International
Journal of English Studies, 10(1), 155–165.
Ellis, R. (1997). SLA and language pedagogy: An educational perspective. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 69–92.
Ellis, R. (1999). Making the classroom acquisition‐rich. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Learning a second language through Interaction
(pp. 211–229). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of instructed language learning. System, 33(2), 209–224.
Farhady, H., & Hedayati, H. (2009). Language assessment policy in Iran. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 29, 132–141.
Foroozandeh, E., & Forouzani, M. (2015). Developing school English materials for the new Iranian educational system. In C.
Kennedy (Ed.), English language teaching in the Islamic Republic of Iran: Innovations, trends and challenges (pp. 59–73).
London: British Council.
Gass, S. M. (1997). Input and interaction in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Earlbaum.
Gates, S. (2003). Inconsistencies in writing within the Japanese Junior High School EFL Education System. JALT Journal, 25(2),
197–217.
Guilloteaux, M. J. (2013). Language textbook selection: Using materials analysis from the perspective of SLA principles. The
Asia‐Pacific Education Researcher, 22(3), 231–239.
Hayati, A. M., & Mashhadi, A. (2010). Language planning and language‐in‐education policy in Iran. Language Problems and
Language Planning, 34(1), 24–42.
Jahangard, A. (2007). Evaluation of the EFL materials taught at Iranian high schools. The Asian EFL Journal, 9(2),
130–150.
Jeon, I. (2005). An analysis of task‐based materials and performance: Focused on Korean high school English textbooks.
English Teaching, 60(2), 87–109.
Johnson, K. (1995). Understanding communication in second language classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18 ALIAKBARI AND TARLANI‐ALIABADI

Kiany, G. R., Mirhosseini, S. A., & Navidinia, H. (2010). Foreign language education policies in Iran: Pivotal macro consider-
ations. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 53(2), 49–70.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.
Lantolf, J. (2000). Second language learning as a mediated process. Language Teaching, 33, 79–96.
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta‐analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309–365.
Littlejohn, A. (1992). Why are English language teaching materials the way they are? Doctoral dissertation, University of
Lancaster. Retrieved 2016 from http://www.andrewlittlejohn.net/website/books/phd.html
Littlejohn, A. (2011). The analysis of language teaching materials: inside the Trojan Horse. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Materials
development in language teaching (pp. 179–211). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie, & T. Bhatia (Eds.),
Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Morse, J. (1998). Designing funded qualitative research. In N. Denzin, & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry
(pp. 56–85). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Naghdipour, B. (2016). English writing instruction in Iran: Implications for second language writing curriculum and pedagogy.
Second Language Writing Journal, 32, 81–87.
Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching and learning. Boston, MA: Heinle Q Heinle.
Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. London: Hodder Arnold.
Paulston, C. B. (1972). Structural pattern drills: A classification. In H. Allen, & R. Campbell (Eds.), Teaching English as a second
language (pp. 129–138). New York: McGraw Hill.
Riazi, A. (2005). The four language stages in the history of Iran. In A. M. Y. Lin, & P. W. Martin (Eds.), Decolonization,
globalization: Language‐in‐education policy and practice (pp. 98–114). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Riazi, A. M., & Mosallanejad, N. (2010). Evaluation of learning objective in Iranian high school and pre‐university English
textbook using Bloom's taxonomy. TESL‐EJ, 13(4), 1–14.
Richards, J. C. (2006). Materials development and research‐making the connection. RELC Journal, 37(1), 5–26.
Rifkin, B. (1998). Gender representation in foreign language textbooks: A case study of textbooks of Russian. The Modern
Language Journal, 82(2), 217–236.
Safi, A. (2013). Iran's education system in the past one hundred years. Roshd Junior High School Journal, 18(2), 48–64.
Sahragard, R., Rahimi, A., & Zaremoayeddi, I. (2009). An in‐depth evaluation of interchange series (3rd ed.). Porta Linguarum,
12, 37–54.
Schmidt, R. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. AILA Review, 11,
11–26.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its
development. In S. M. Gass, & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury
House.
Temple, B., & Young, A. (2004). Qualitative research and translation dilemmas. Qualitative Research, 4(2), 161–178.
Tomlinson, B. (2008). Language acquisition and language learning materials. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), English language learning
materials: A critical review (pp. 3–13). London: Continuum.
Tomlinson, B. (2010). Principles of effective materials development. In N. Harwood (Ed.), English language teaching materials:
Theory and practice (pp. 81–108). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tomlinson, B., & Masuhara, H. (2010). Applications of the research results for second language acquisition theory and
research. In B. Tomlinson, & H. Masuhara (Eds.), Research for materials development in language teaching: Evidence from
best practice (pp. 399–409). London: Continuum.
Tsai, K. J. (2015). Profiling the collocation use in ELT textbooks and learner writing. Language Teaching Research, 19(6), 1–18.
Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wong, W., & VanPatten, B. (2003). The evidence is IN: Drills are OUT. Foreign Language Annals, 36(3), 403–423.

How to cite this article: Aliakbari M, Tarlani‐Aliabadi H. Categorization of writing tasks in Iranian senior high
school English textbooks. Int J Appl Linguist. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12195
ALIAKBARI AND TARLANI‐ALIABADI 19

APPENDIX A

Sample pages about Iranian senior high school English textbooks (with written permission from Iran's Center for Writ-
ing Textbooks and Planning National Curricula)
English book 3 (F) English book 1 (D)

APPENDIX B

TABLE B1 Analysis of writing tasks in Textbooks A, B, and C

A B C
Task number 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5
Task page number 32 7 44 50 80 88 88 88 95 102 21 30 41 55 71

1. What is the learner expected to do?

A. Turn‐Take
Initiate
Scripted response * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Not required
B. ocus on
Language system (rules or form) * * * * * * * *

(Continues)
20 ALIAKBARI AND TARLANI‐ALIABADI

TABLE B1 (Continued)

A B C
Task number 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5
Task page number 32 7 44 50 80 88 88 88 95 102 21 30 41 55 71
Meaning
Meaning/system/form relationship * * * * * *
Organizational structure *
Mental operation
(+) Apply a stated language rule to produce sentences
(‐) Repeat with substitution * * *
(+) Repeat/ reproduce a text identically * * * * * * * * * *
(+) Repeat a text with expansion *
(+) Repeat/reproduce a sentence with transformation
(+) Complete a text with recalled items *
II. Who with
Learners individually/simultaneously * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Learner to the whole class
Learner individually outside the class
III. With what content
A. Input to learners
a. Form
(+) Written extended discourse >50 words * *
(+) Aural extended discourse >50 words * * * * * * * * * *
(+) Written sentences <50 words * * *
(+) Graphic
b. Source
(+) Materials * * * * * *
(+) Teacher * * * * * * * * *
c. Nature
(+) Non‐fiction * * *
(+) Metalinguistic comment * * *
B. Expected output from learners
a. Form
(+) Written extended discourse >50 words * * * * * * * * * *
(+) Written sentences <50 words * * *
(+) Linguistic items (e.g., words, phrases) * *
b. Source
(+) Materials * * * * * *
(+) Teacher * * * * * * * * *
c. Nature
(+) Non‐fiction *
(+) Linguistic items (e.g., words, phrases and sentences) * * * * *
ALIAKBARI AND TARLANI‐ALIABADI 21

TABLE B2 Analysis of writing tasks in Textbook D

D
Task number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Task page
number 16 16 29 30 42 42 53 54 54 65 65 74 75 86 86 97 97 97 112 112 113 113

1. What is the
learner
expected to
do?
A. Turn‐Take
Initiate
Scripted * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
response
Not required
B. Focus on
Language system * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
(rules or form)
Meaning
Meaning/
system/form
relationship
Organizational
structure

Mental operation
(+) Apply a stated * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
language rule
to produce
sentences
(‐) Repeat with *
substitution
(+) Repeat/
reproduce a
text identically
(+) Repeat a text
with expansion
(+) Repeat/ * * *
reproduce a
sentence with
transformation
(+) Complete a
text with
recalled items

II. Who with

Learners * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
individually/
simultaneously
Learner to the
whole class

(Continues)
22 ALIAKBARI AND TARLANI‐ALIABADI

TABLE B2 (Continued)

D
Task number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Task page
number 16 16 29 30 42 42 53 54 54 65 65 74 75 86 86 97 97 97 112 112 113 113
Learner
individually
outside the
class
III. With what
content
A. Input to
learners
a. Form
(+) Written
extended
discourse >50
words
(+) Aural
extended
discourse >50
words
(+) Written * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
sentences <50
words
(+) Graphic *
b. Source
(+) Materials * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
(+) Teacher
c. Nature
(+) Non‐fiction
(+) Metalinguistic * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
comment
B. Expected
output from
learners
a. Form
(+) Written
extended
discourse >50
words
(+) Written * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
sentences <50
words
(+) Linguistic * * * * *
items (e.g.,
words,
phrases)
b. Source
(+) Materials * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
(+) Teacher
c. Nature
(+) Non‐fiction

(Continues)
ALIAKBARI AND TARLANI‐ALIABADI 23

TABLE B2 (Continued)

D
Task number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Task page
number 16 16 29 30 42 42 53 54 54 65 65 74 75 86 86 97 97 97 112 112 113 113
(+) Linguistic * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
items (e.g.,
words, phrases
and sentences)

TABLE B3 Analysis of writing tasks in Textbook E

E
Task number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Task page number 7 8 8 22 23 23 37 38 51 51 51 64 64 64 77 78 78 78 78 89 89

1. What is the learner expected

to do?
A. Turn‐Take
Initiate
Scripted response * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Not required
B. Focus on
Language system (rules or * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
form)
Meaning
Meaning/system/form
relationship
Organizational structure
Mental operation
(+) Apply a stated language rule * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
to produce sentences
(‐) Repeat with substitution
(+) Repeat/ reproduce a text
identically
(+) Repeat a text with
expansion
(+) Repeat/reproduce a * * * * * *
sentence with
transformation
(+) Complete a text with
recalled items
II. Who with
Learners individually/ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
simultaneously
Learner to the whole class
Learner individually outside the
class
III. With what content

(Continues)
24 ALIAKBARI AND TARLANI‐ALIABADI

TABLE B3 (Continued)

E
Task number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Task page number 7 8 8 22 23 23 37 38 51 51 51 64 64 64 77 78 78 78 78 89 89
A. Input to learners
a. Form
(+) Written extended discourse
>50 words
(+) Aural extended discourse
>50 words
(+) Written sentences <50 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
words
(+) Graphic *
b. Source
(+) Materials * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
(+) Teacher
c. Nature
(+) Non‐fiction
(+) Metalinguistic comment * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
B. Expected output from
Learners
a. Form
(+) Written extended discourse
>50 words
(+) Written sentences <50 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
words
(+) Linguistic items (e.g., words, * * * *
phrases)
b. Source
(+) Materials * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
(+) Teacher
c. Nature
(+) Non‐fiction
(+) Linguistic items (e.g., words, * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
phrases and sentences)

TABLE B4 Analysis of writing tasks in Textbook F

F
Task number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Task page number 15 16 18 31 31 32 32 48 49 61 61 62 74 75 89 90

1. What is the learner expected to do?

A. Turn‐Take
Initiate
Scripted response * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Not required
B. Focus on
Language system (rules or form) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

(Continues)
ALIAKBARI AND TARLANI‐ALIABADI 25

TABLE B4 (Continued)

F
Task number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Task page number 15 16 18 31 31 32 32 48 49 61 61 62 74 75 89 90
Meaning
Meaning/system/form relationship
Organizational structure
Mental operation
(+) Apply a stated language rule to produce * * * * * * * * * * *
sentences
(‐) Repeat with substitution
(+) Repeat/ reproduce a text identically
(+) Repeat a text with expansion
(+) Repeat/reproduce a sentence with * * * * *
transformation
(+) Complete a text with recalled items
II. Who with
Learners individually/simultaneously * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Learner to the whole class
Learner individually outside the class
III. With what content
A. Input to learners
a. Form
(+) Written extended discourse >50 words
(+) Aural extended discourse >50 words
(+) Written sentences <50 words * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
(+) Graphic *
b. Source
(+) Materials * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
(+) Teacher
c. Nature
(+) Non‐fiction
(+) Metalinguistic comment * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
B. Expected output from Learners
a. Form
(+) Written extended discourse >50 words
(+) Written sentences <50 words * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
(+) Linguistic items (e.g., words, phrases) *
b. Source
(+) Materials * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
(+) Teacher
c. Nature
(+) Non‐fiction
(+) Linguistic items (e.g., words, phrases and * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
sentences)
 Analysis of writing tasks in Textbook G
26

TABLE B5

Task number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

Task page
number 14 14 15 15 16 31 31 31 32 32 49 50 50 50 51 65 66 66 66 88 88 88 89 105 106 106 121 121 122 122 137 137 138 138 152 152 153 153 153

1. What is the
learner
expected
to do?
A. Turn‐Take
Initiate
Scripted * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
response
Not required
B. Focus on
Language * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
system
(rules or
form)
Meaning
Meaning/
system/
form
relationship
Organizational
structure
Mental
operation
(+) Apply a * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
stated
language
rule to
produce
sentences
(‐) Repeat with
substitution
(+) Repeat/
reproduce
a text
identically

(Continues)
ALIAKBARI AND TARLANI‐ALIABADI
TABLE B5 (Continued)
G

Task number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

Task page
number 14 14 15 15 16 31 31 31 32 32 49 50 50 50 51 65 66 66 66 88 88 88 89 105 106 106 121 121 122 122 137 137 138 138 152 152 153 153 153

(+) Repeat a
text with
expansion

(+) Repeat/ * * * *
reproduce a
sentence with
ALIAKBARI AND TARLANI‐ALIABADI

transformation
(+) Complete a
text with
recalled items
II. Who with
Learners * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
individually/
simultaneously
Learner to the
whole class
Learner
individually
outside the
class
III. With what
content
A. Input to
learners
a. Form
(+) Written
extended
discourse
>50 words
(+) Aural
extended
discourse
>50 words
(+) Written * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
sentences
<50 words

(Continues)
27
 28

TABLE B5 (Continued)
G

Task number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

View publication stats

Task page
number 14 14 15 15 16 31 31 31 32 32 49 50 50 50 51 65 66 66 66 88 88 88 89 105 106 106 121 121 122 122 137 137 138 138 152 152 153 153 153

(+) Graphic
b. Source
(+) Materials * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
(+) Teacher
c. Nature
(+) Non‐fiction
(+) Metalinguistic * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
comment
B. Expected
output from
Learners
a. Form
(+) Written
extended
discourse
>50 words
(+) Written * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
sentences
<50 words
(+) Linguistic * * * * * * * * *
items (e.g.,
words,
phrases)
b. Source
(+) Materials * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
(+) Teacher
c. Nature
(+) Non‐fiction
(+) Linguistic * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
items (e.g.,
words,
phrases and
sentences)
ALIAKBARI AND TARLANI‐ALIABADI