JoLIE 2:1 (2009)
A COMPARISON OF ENGLISH AND PERSIAN
ORGANIZATIONAL PATTERNS IN THE ARGUMENTATIVE
WRITING OF IRANIAN EFL STUDENTS
Naser Rashidi
Shiraz University, Iran
Zahra Alimorad Dastkhezr
Shiraz University, Iran
Abstract
The relationship between first language (L1) and second language (L2) writing has attracted
the attention of L2 writing researchers. Recent studies have pointed to not only differences
but also similarities between L1 and L2 writing. The present study compared L1 (Persian)
and L2 (English) organizational patterns in the argumentative writing of Iranian EFL
student-writers. The study made within-subject comparisons of L1 and L2 compositions in
terms of organizational patterns, organization scores, and overall quality. Student
perceptions of L1 and L2 organization were also investigated by incorporating their
assertions of their own L1/L2 compositions into the analysis. The results revealed that (a) a
majority of students employed deductive type organizational patterns in both L1 and L2; (b)
despite similarities between L1 and L2 organizational patterns, L2 organization scores were
not significantly correlated with L1 organization scores; (c) L2 composition total scores
differed significantly from those of L1; and (d) some students evidenced problems in
organizing both L1 and L2 texts. Possible implications of the results are discussed as they
pertain to research and pedagogy.
Key words: organizational pattern, argumentative writing, deductive organizational pattern,
inductive organizational pattern, composition writing.
Introduction
Rhetoric can be defined as the "choice of linguistic and structural aspects of a
discourse chosen to produce an effect on an audience" (Purves 1988: 9, cited in
Noor 2001). Since research in contrastive rhetoric began in the 1960s, linguists
have taken different approaches in their studies. Such approaches, of course,
depended on the goals of the scholars.
Kaplan (1966) was the first scholar to study the differences in discourse
structures in various languages, coining the term 'contrastive rhetoric'. Since then,
following Kaplan's lead, but not always following his method of analysis, many
scholars have studied contrastive rhetoric.
132
Naser RASHIDI and Zahra ALIMORAD DASTKHEZR
In 1966, Kaplan hypothesized that English speakers, whose thought
patterns have been shaped by Greek and Roman philosophers, Medieval Europeans,
and West European thinkers, use a predominantly linear paragraph organization in
expository texts. At that time he maintained that an expository discourse in English
began with a topic statement, which was followed by subdivisions supported by
examples and illustrations, that central idea was developed to prove or argue the
subject in question, relating the central idea to all the other ideas in the whole essay.
Other languages showed a different, non-linear organization of paragraphs in
expository prose. Examining 598 essays by foreign students from various language
backgrounds - Arabic, Chinese, French, Spanish and Russian -, Kaplan came to the
conclusion that while paragraph development in Arabic was based on a series of
parallel constructions, Chinese writing followed what he called "turning and turning
in a widening gyre" (Kaplan 1966, p. 10). French and Spanish followed much more
digressions than English did. Kaplan presented these forms in simple diagrams in
his article, which is now popularly known as the 'doodle article' (Kaplan, 1966).
Up to now, no study has been conducted to investigate the relationship
between L1 and L2 organizational patterns in the argumentative writings of Iranian
EFL learners. The present study intends to fill this gap and to reveal whether there
is a relationship between L1 (Persian) and L2 (English) organizational patterns in
the argumentative writing of Iranian EFL student-writers. The study made withinsubject comparisons of L1 and L2 compositions in terms of organizational patterns,
organization scores, and overall quality. Student perceptions of L1 and L2
organization were also investigated by incorporating their assertions of their own
L1/L2 compositions into the analysis.
Literature review
Kaplan (1966) was the first scholar to study the differences in discourse structures
in various languages, coining the term 'contrastive rhetoric'. Since then, following
Kaplan's lead, but not always following his method of analysis, many scholars have
studied contrastive rhetoric.
Kaplan's approach of comparing discourse written in a common second
language was followed by Ostler (1988), who (in her dissertation under Kaplan's
supervision) studied essays by Arabic, English, Japanese, and Spanish speakers for
rhetorical organizational patterns. She took 40 essays from each language group.
The English corpus was taken from freshmen who were native speakers of English.
The nonnative corpus was taken from essays written in English by Arabic,
Japanese, and Spanish speakers taking an English placement examination. She
found that Arab students' essays were marked by a greater use of parallel
constructions (a result that coincides with Kaplan's (1966) diagram for Arabic);
Spanish students’ essays were distinguished by longer sentences and sentential
elaboration; Japanese students' essays lacked syntactic elaboration; and Englishspeaking students' essays showed a greater use of nominalizations and passives.
Besides, English-speaking students had developed introductions and summarizing
A Comparison of English and Persian … 133
conclusions, while Arabic-speaking students had elaborate introductions but less
consistent conclusions. Japanese students developed detail in the latter part of the
essay, moving away from the initial topic, which contrasted with the English pattern
developing ideas at the beginning.
Connor (1984) also followed Kaplan's approach, but her study concentrated
on text recall. She administered a 322-word passage from The Washington Post to
11 Japanese, 10 Spanish, and 10 English speakers to investigate (1) whether the
differences in the quantity and value of recalled propositions among the three
different native language groups were significant and (2) whether the differences in
the recall of superordinate and subordinate propositions attributable to the speakers'
first language backgrounds were also significant. She concluded that the English
speakers recalled more propositions than the ESL (Spanish and Japanese) students
and that this difference was significant; in contrast, the difference between the
Spanish and Japanese ESL students was not significant. She further found that there
was no significant difference in the recall of superordinate (high-level) ideas,
whereas there was a significant difference in the recall of subordinate (low-level)
propositions. Again, no significant difference was found between the Spanish and
Japanese students.
Clyne (1980, 1981) studied essay-writing manual from English-speaking
and German-speaking countries; Matriculation Examiners' Reports on four school
subjects for Victoria, Australia; and examiners' comments on 400 history
examination papers. He concluded that German discourse is less linear than English
discourse. While English scholars and educational systems pay more attention to
formal discourse (linear progression), their German counterparts pay more attention
to the content of the discourse, allowing digressions that allow the students to show
their general knowledge of the topic. In his 1987 study, Clyne shows that the
digression (the Exkurs) in German texts is of functional importance, because it
provides theory, ideology, or additional information, or helps the author to enter
into a polemic discourse with another author. The Exkurs is institutionalized in
Germany and has "neither a conceptual equivalent nor a translation equivalent in
English" (Clyne 1987: 213-214).
Purves (1986) took samples of essays written on the topic 'My native town'
by secondary school students in Australia, England, Finland, the Ivory Coast, Italy,
Israel, Japan, New Zealand, Nigeria, Scotland, Thailand, and the U.S. Those essays
which were not written in English were translated into English from the original
language, while retaining the style and the flavor of the original. Using Carroll's
(1960) factors such as personal versus impersonal (which depends on the frequency
of references to the writer's thoughts and feelings about the topic), ornamental
versus plain (which shows the difference between figurative language and literal
language), abstract versus concrete (which depends on the amount of specific
information, details, or references in the text), single versus multiple focus (which
depends on whether the text focuses on a single main point or several related points
around a central theme), and propositional strategies versus appositional coherence
strategies (structures such as if-then or cause-effect versus additive or narrative
structures), Purves found a striking difference between countries and a striking
134
Naser RASHIDI and Zahra ALIMORAD DASTKHEZR
similarity within countries. For example, Australian writing was highly personal,
figurative (ornamental), single, and propositional; whereas Finnish writing was
impersonal, plain, multiple, and appositional. He concludes that these differences in
writing styles are the results of conventions followed in schools; and he also warns
not to draw any conclusion about the writing styles of a country based on his
findings because his subjects were students who were still learning to write, and
their writing styles did not reflect those of professional writers.
Hinds (1987) suggests a typology of languages. Giving examples from
Japanese texts, and anecdotes of conversation between Americans and Japanese, he
claims that while English uses a writer-responsible rhetoric (i.e., it is the duty of the
writer to make his/her text clear to the reader), Japanese uses a reader-responsible
rhetoric (i.e., it is the responsibility of the reader to understand what the writer has
intended to say). Comparing Classical and Modern Chinese texts, Hinds further
maintains that while Classical Chinese was more like Japanese in that it had a
reader-responsible rhetoric, Modern Chinese is more like English in that it uses a
writer-responsible rhetoric. According to Hinds, the area in which the organization
of writer-responsible rhetoric differs from that of reader-responsible rhetoric is
unity. In English discourse, which is writer-responsible, unity is very important
because readers expect landmarks along the way. The writer must provide transition
statements so that the reader can piece together the logic that binds the discourse
together. However, in Japanese discourse, which is reader-responsible, landmarks
may be absent or weak and the reader must determine the relationship between any
part of the discourse and the discourse as a whole. Transition statements are subtle,
which requires the reader to play an active role in order to understand a piece of
discourse. This means that these two kinds of rhetoric fulfill different expectations
of the reader. In the writer-responsible rhetoric, the reader expects the discourse to
persuade him, and all arguments should contribute directly to that; whereas in a
reader-responsible rhetoric, the reader sorts and evaluates the observations (or hints)
related loosely to the general topic in a discourse.
Clyne (1987) makes similar claims for English and German, although his
study does not specifically look into writer-responsibility versus readerresponsibility. He says that in English-speaking countries the burden falls on writers
to make their texts readable, whereas in German-speaking countries the readers
have to make the extra effort to understand the texts. Because knowledge is
idealized in the German tradition, Clyne maintains, German texts attempt to provide
readers with knowledge, theory, and stimulus to thought, and are not designed to be
easy to read.
In another study, Zellermayer (1988), comparing 'exposition' passages from
novels written by contemporary Hebrew writers, comes to the conclusion that
Hebrew texts require more reader involvement than do English texts. According to
him, Hebrew texts adjust their coherence to a rhetorical community that expects to
participate actively in the processing of information, while English texts
accommodate readers who expect a more explicit textual scheme for
comprehension. Zellermayer shows the difference between two types of rhetorical
expectations by pointing out how Hebrew target texts translated from English delete
A Comparison of English and Persian … 135
some of the decontextualization cues (such as cohesion markers, information
ordering, intensifiers, and integrative devices), as well as references to information
in Hebrew canonical texts, in order to provide additional contextualization cues for
Hebrew readers, while English target texts add decontextualization cues in order to
allow a smooth and automatic processing by the reader.
The transfer of organizational patterns from L1 to L2 has been a
controversial issue. Some argue that L2 organization reflects that of L1, whereas
others claim that poor L2 organization manifests only a developmental problem
rather than L1 transfer (Mohan & Lo 1985).
Examining Arabic and Japanese ESL students’ L1 writing backgrounds,
Liebman (1992) found that the Japanese regarded persuasive writing to be like
expressive writing in that writers express their personal emotions, which was in
sharp contrast with the Arabic students who considered logic or supporting
evidence essential to persuasive writing. The differences found in their perceptions
of persuasive writing can be partly explained by their previous L1 writing
background. The Japanese students in her study had reportedly received expressive
writing instruction using journals, whereas the Arabic students received
transactional writing instruction, including discussion and peer reading. Without
much argumentative writing experience in L1, EFL Japanese university students
can therefore be expected to have problems with argumentative writing in L2.
Inexperience with such writing in L1, not to mention unfamiliarity with L2 writing,
may cause problems in L2 argumentative writing, which result from ‘‘both
developmental and transfer factors’’ (Mohan & Lo 1985: 517).
Examining Japanese university students’ L1 and L2 expository and
persuasive writing from the perspective of organization, Kubota (1998) found that
many students’ L1/L2 texts were organized similarly, and L1/L2 organization
scores correlated positively in both types of writing. These results seem to suggest
that EFL Japanese students write not so differently in L1 and L2 in terms of
organization. Although Kubota’s (1998) participants’ L2 proficiency levels were
not reported, they were third- and fourth-year university undergraduates and
graduates who were assumed to ‘‘reflect the outcome of academic training in
Japan’’ (p. 76).
To this day, no study has been conducted to investigate the relationship
between Persian and English organizational patterns. The present study intends to
fill this gap and to reveal the relationship between the L1 (Persian) and L2 (English)
organizational patterns in the argumentative writing of Iranian EFL student-writers.
The same study has been conducted by Hirose (2003) with respect to the
organizational patterns of English and Japanese and this study is a replication of his
study.
136
Naser RASHIDI and Zahra ALIMORAD DASTKHEZR
Research questions
The present study addressed the following two sets of research questions:
1. Are there differences in organizational patterns between L1 and L2
argumentative texts written by the same Iranian EFL students? How do the studentwriters evaluate the organizational patterns they employed in L1/L2 argumentative
writing?
2. Are there differences in quality of text and organization between L1 and L2
argumentative texts written by the same Iranian EFL students? What is the relation
between rhetorical patterns and evaluation in L1/L2 argumentative texts?
Method
Participants
A convenient sample of 30 students (7 male and 23 female) was chosen to
participate in this study. They were undergraduate English students who were
studying English Literature at Shiraz State University. All of them were Persian
native speakers and of intermediate proficiency level.
Instruments
In both L1 and L2, the participants wrote an argumentative composition taking one
of two given positions and supporting it. The following prompt was given for the
L2 task:
There has been a heated discussion about the issue of ‘school uniforms’ in
the readers’ column in an English newspaper. Some people think that high
school students should wear school uniforms, whereas others believe
students should choose what to wear at school. Now the editor of the
newspaper is calling for the readers’ opinions. Suppose you are writing for
the readers’ opinion column. Take one of the positions described above,
and write your opinion in English.
The same prompt in Persian was used for the L1 task, except for changing ‘‘an
English newspaper’’ to ‘‘Keyhan newspaper”. In spite of the potential for a practice
effect, the same topic was used for L1 and L2 because different topics may
influence writing quality including the choice of organizational pattern (see HampLyons, 1990, for the effects of topic variables). The topic of ‘‘school uniforms’’
was chosen because it was considered to be familiar to the participants.
For both tasks, the participants were not informed before hand that they
would be writing in class, nor about the topic. The participants first wrote in L2,
and a week later, wrote in L1. It was not possible to counterbalance the order
because both L1 and L2 data were collected in regular class hours of the same
course. This order (L2 before L1) was chosen because the opposite order (L1 before
L2) was considered to induce more retention (recall) of the first writing and to
A Comparison of English and Persian … 137
facilitate translation in the second writing (Hirose & Sasaki, 1994). They were
asked to write for 30 minutes, but they were allowed to stop when, or continue
until, they felt they had finished. The time they spent ranged from approximately 10
to 20 minutes. They were not permitted to use a dictionary.
Data analysis procedures
In order to examine English and Persian organizational patterns, the present study
applied the three types of analysis originally employed by Kubota (1992) for
Japanese language: (a) the location of main idea(s); (b) the macro-level rhetorical
pattern; and (c) the presence or absence of a summary statement. In this study, a
writer’s position statement either for or against ‘‘school uniforms’’ was considered
as a main idea. First, the location of the opinion-stating sentence was identified as
one of the following four: Initial (stated in the introduction), Middle (in the middle
section), Final (in the conclusion), or Obscure (not clearly stated). There were no
cases of more than one position taken in the same text.
Furthermore, the macro-level rhetorical pattern was identified for each text
as one of the following three major patterns: Explanation (the writer’s opinion
precedes a supporting reason), Specification (the writer’s opinion and a preview
statement of a supporting reason are followed by the reason), or Induction (a
supporting reason precedes the writer’s opinion) (see Appendix A for more details).
The Explanation and Specification were considered instances of deductive style,
whereas Induction was regarded as inductive style. Third, the presence or absence
of a summary statement at the end of the text was coded as one of the following
three: (+) the writer’s opinion on the topic is re-presented or what was discussed in
the text is summarized; (-) neither opinion nor summary is presented, or (0) the
writer’s only statement of opinion is located at the end of the essay (Hirose, 2003).
For Research Question set 1, the L1/L2 compositions of the participants
were compared in terms of the three points mentioned above. For Research
Question set 2, the L1/L2 compositions were compared in terms of organization
scores and total scores. The researcher herself and one of her friends rated the
students’ compositions and the interrater reliabilities are reported. The paired t-test
was conducted to check for statistically significant differences. Furthermore,
correlations among total and subscores of L1/L2 compositions were all measured.
In order to rate L2 compositions, the researcher used Jacobs et al.’s profile
(1981); but, for L1 compositions Bailey and Brown’s framework (1984 cited in
Farhady, Jafarpoor & Birjandi, 1994) for rating compositions was used.
138
Naser RASHIDI and Zahra ALIMORAD DASTKHEZR
Results
Research Question Set 1
Overall organizational patterns
Table 1 presents the results of the two coders’ analysis of the organizational
patterns of students’ compositions. As shown in Table 1 most of the participants
clearly stated their opinions in L1/L2.
Table 1
Location of main ideas, macro-level patterns, and summary statements
Writer
Main idea
Pattern
Summary statement
number
L1
L2
L1
L2
L1
L2
1
Initial
Final
Explanation
Explanation
+
(Collection)
(Collection)
2
Initial
Initial
Explanation
Explanation
+
(Collection)
(Collection)
3
Obscure
Initial
Explanation
Explanation
+
+
(Collection)
(Collection)
4
Middle
Middle
Explanation
Explanation
(Collection)
(Collection)
5
Initial
Initial
Explanation
Explanation
+
+
(Collection)
(Collection)
6
Obscure Obscure
Explanation
Explanation
+
(Collection)
(Collection)
7
Initial
Initial
Explanation
Explanation
+
(Collection)
(Collection)
8
Initial
Obscure
Explanation
Explanation
+
+
(Collection)
(Collection)
9
Initial
Initial
Explanation
Explanation
+
+
(Collection)
(Collection)
10
Initial
Initial
Explanation
Explanation
+
+
(Collection)
(Collection)
11
Initial
Initial
Explanation
Explanation
+
+
(Collection)
(Collection)
12
Obscure Initial
Explanation
Explanation
+
(Collection)
(Collection)
13
Initial
Initial
Explanation
Explanation
+
+
(Collection)
(Collection)
14
Obscure Obscure
Explanation
Explanation
+
(Collection)
(Collection)
15
Initial
Initial
Explanation
Explanation
+
(Collection)
(Collection)
16
Middle Initial
Induction
Expalnation
+
(Collection)
(Collection)
A Comparison of English and Persian … 139
17
Initial
Initial
18
Middle
Middle
19
Obscure
Obscure
20
Obscure
Obscure
21
Initial
Final
22
Initial
Initial
23
Middle
Initial
24
Obscure Initial
25
Initial
Initial
26
Initial
Obscure
27
Initial
Initial
28
Obscure Initial
29
Obscure Initial
30
Initial
Initial
Explanation
(Collection)
Explnation
(Collection)
Explanation
(Collection)
Explanation
(Collection)
Explanation
(Collection)
Explanation
(Collection)
Induction
(Collection)
Explanation
(Collection)
Explanation
(Collection)
Explanation
(Collection)
Explanation
(Collection)
Induction
(Collection)
Explanation
(Collection)
Explanation
(Collection)
Explanation
(Collection)
Induction
(Collection)
Explanation
(Collection)
Explanation
(Collection)
Induction
(Collection)
Explanation
(Collection)
Explanation
(Collection)
Explanation
(Collection)
Explanation
(Collection)
Explanation
(Collection)
Explanation
(Collection)
Explanation
(Collection)
Explanation
(Collection)
Explanation
(Collection)
-
+
+
+
-
-
-
-
+
0
-
+
+
+
-
-
-
+
-
+
-
-
-
-
-
+
On the whole, comparisons between L1/L2 organizational patterns showed more
similarities than differences. More specifically, 5 out of 30 participants (17%)
organized their L1/L2 compositions in exactly the same way, in terms of the
location of main idea, rhetorical pattern and summary statement (5, 9, 10, 11, and
13), and 5 of them (17%) did so similar to each other (2, 17, 22, 27, and 30).
Similarities in L1 and L2 organizational patterns could be taken for granted,
considering the writing conditions. The writers wrote on the same topic with an
interval of a week between them in class. Similarities can thus be explained by
writers’ retention of the first writing and transfer to the second writing. For
example, Writer 5 wrote exactly the same way in L1/L2 (Table 1) and his positions
were the same and supporting reasons were accordingly similar in his L1 and L2
texts. In all cases, the L2 texts were similar to the L1 texts in some ways, but the
former were not the translation equivalents of the latter. (See Appendix D for one
student’s sample of L1/L2 compositions). The results of the analysis of location of
main idea, macro-level patterns, and summary statement are each discussed
separately below.
140
Naser RASHIDI and Zahra ALIMORAD DASTKHEZR
Location of main idea
As Table 1 shows, in L2 most of the participants put their positions (either for or
against ‘‘school uniforms’’) in the initial section and used deductive patterns
(66.6%); some of them put their positions in the final section (6.6%), some other in
the middle (6.6%), and the rest had not mentioned their positions clearly (20.2%).
In L1, however, 17 participants (56.6%) stated their positions in the initial section, 4
(13.3%) in the middle section, and 9 (30%) had an obscure position and no one had
stated his/her position in the final section in L1. Most used deductive patterns and
some, although much smaller in number chose inductive patterns.
In addition to these major findings, there also emerged subtle variations in
some students’ writing: (1) several students made neutral statements before taking
positions in both L1 and L2, and (2) some located the main idea at the end of the
essay in L1. In this section, I will consider (1) why most students stated their
positions initially, (2) what those students who did not state their positions at the
outset of the introductory paragraph did instead, and (3) possible reasons why some
students differed in the location of their positions between L1 and L2.
First, why did most students make a position statement at the outset of the
introductory paragraphs in L1/L2? It seems likely that past writing instruction led
them to do so and to employ similar organizational patterns in L1/L2. In an openended section of the self-analysis, four participants who put their positions initially
in L1/L2 texts said that they made conscious decisions in locating their position
statements. The students’ reflective reports suggest that they learned to locate their
main points at the initial position and consciously put this knowledge into practice
regardless of language. Because none of them specified whether it was L1 or L2
instruction or both that had influenced their choice of where to locate their main
points, it was not possible to trace instructional effects to instruction in either
language. Whichever instruction influenced their conscious decision, the effects of
instruction can be speculated to have been made across languages.
Nevertheless, the main idea does not always appear at the outset of the
introductory paragraph in English or in Persian. According to Rinnert and
Kobayashi (2001), the introductory paragraph of English essays “tend[s] to contain
a thesis statement toward or at the end of the introduction” (p. 201) rather than at
the beginning of the paragraph. In other words, the placement of the main idea at
the outset of the introductory paragraph may not represent either preferred English
or Persian pattern. In fact, in the follow-up interview, Writer 21 reported that what
she learned through English writing instruction at university was, among other
things, to state the thesis statement preferably at the end of the introductory
paragraph. She said that she always made a conscious effort to put this into practice
while writing. For the present L1/L2 tasks, however, she stated her position at the
outset of the introductory paragraph.
In sum, the present results concerning the initial location of main ideas can
be interpreted in several ways. First, the participants apparently used their learned
knowledge of stating the main ideas initially. They might have over-generalized the
”rule” about placing the topic sentence in the initial position (Rinnert & Kobayashi
A Comparison of English and Persian … 141
2001). Or, even if they knew a preferred English pattern as Writer 21 did, it must
not have been easy to apply the pattern to this task, especially within the limited
time of the composition task. Within the time constraints, it must have been easier
for them to place the thesis statement at the beginning, rather than near or at the end
of the introductory paragraph. Third, it is also likely that the opinion letter task
itself influenced their choice of organizational patterns. The explicit task of taking a
position on an issue may have pushed them to express their positions for/against the
given topic at the outset of their writing. Furthermore, the organization of such
writing for the readers’ opinion columns in a newspaper can be expected to differ
from those of argumentative writing. For example, opinion letters often begin with
an identification of the issue being responded to and a writer’s
agreement/disagreement/evaluation of the article.
Related to the issue of what to start with, several students did not present
their positions in the first sentence of the introductory paragraph in L1/L2. In L2, 20
students (66.6%) stated their positions in the first sentence of the introductory
paragraph, whereas 2 students (6.6%) placed them in the second sentence. If
personal experience is used as support for the writer’s argument, it can contribute to
establishing the credibility of the writer (Connor 1990). Personal information can
also play an effective role in persuading the reader. For example, Writer 23 wrote:
I agree with wearing school uniforms, but under some circumstances. My
family and I have always suffered from school uniform. The responsible
people used to change it each year. So, I had to buy a new one which had a
new model and a new color. After years of education we found our closets
packed with an unbelievable number of uniforms which each was different
from the other. As a result, I have always hated going back to school…
Those writers who filled the opening space with neutral or personal information
related to the topic probably needed this as a springboard for arguing the topic, and
they drew on what they had in mind about the topic for that purpose. Although most
students in the present study showed no hesitation to reveal their stance initially,
especially in English, there were several students who resorted to neutral statements
in Persian, probably to avoid arguing an issue from the very beginning. This type of
springboard statement also seems to exist in L1 English writing. Rinnert and
Kobayashi (2001) presented the following introductory paragraph as representing a
typical American rhetorical pattern:
In our society, almost every family owns at least one TV set. TV functions
to send information throughout the society; in addition, we can enjoy a
variety of programs for entertainment and education. However, a TV set
prevents us from communicating with family members and this problem
gets worse when families own multiple TV sets (p. 208).
In this paragraph, the first and second sentences providing background information
about the topic can be considered as springboard statements, which are followed by
the thesis statement. Unlike the present study, the topic of Rinnert and Kobayashi’s
142
Naser RASHIDI and Zahra ALIMORAD DASTKHEZR
(2001) essay was the disadvantages of owning a television, and the writer intended
to discuss the disadvantages rather than to present his/her own position on owning a
television. In the first two sentences, the writer not only presented background
information related to the topic but also acknowledged the advantages of owning a
television. It seems these sentences functioned to strengthen the argument
strategically.
Another finding that is noteworthy regarding the location of the main idea
is that two students differed in where they placed their main ideas in L1/L2. How
can one account for this difference? In essence, Writer 1 attributed the L1/L2
difference to the conscious (L2) versus spontaneous (L1) writing processes. While
writing in L1, the idea of writing the position statement did not happen to rise to the
surface of his consciousness. In other words, the initial location of the writer’s
position in L1 resulted from his spontaneous writing process. This contrastive
observation is interesting especially in light of the finding that some students
reported consciously writing their positions initially in L1/L2. Without their
consciousness having been raised, more students could have placed the main points
anywhere but initially. Some students like Writer 1 might have approached L1
writing with more spontaneity. In their L1 writing, as some students actually noted,
they could manage to put into words even superfluous points. Unlike the situation
in their L2 writing, they did not have linguistic problems expressing their intended
meaning in L1. With such linguistic advantages, they could keep L1 writing
processes more spontaneous, which probably induced more variations in the L1
organizational patterns.
Macro-level rhetorical pattern
Regardless of language, the participants favored Explanation (Collection), that is,
they enumerated supporting reasons after presenting their positions (see Table 1).
More specifically, in L2, 28 participants (93%) used Explanation (Collection) and 2
(7%) Induction (Collection), whereas in L1, 27 (90%) used Explanation
(Collection), 3 (10%) Induction (Collection), and no one used Explanation
(Comparison). Thus, there were slightly more variations in L1 organizational
patterns. More than half of the participants (25) used Explanation (Collection) for
both L1 and L2. In contrast, none of the participants in this study used
Specification, which has a statement of the main idea as well as a preview statement
of supporting reasons before the presentation of the subsequent argument.
Dominant use of Explanation in the present study can be explained in
several ways. First, because the participants have had some experience in
expository/academic writing in L1 and L2, they have presumably acquired the
Explanation (Collection) pattern through such experience. Second, as some students
actually explained in the interview, they consciously applied their learned rhetorical
patterns (position-stating in the introduction → supporting the position with reasons
→ restating the position in the conclusion) to this writing task. Third, Specification
requires more detailed planning before writing than Explanation because it should
A Comparison of English and Persian … 143
include a preview statement. The students participated in the present study wrote
under timed conditions in class, and it would therefore have been easier for them to
resort to Explanation, especially in L2.
Presence or absence of summary statement
As shown in Table 1, the results of presence/absence of summary statements in the
final section revealed a difference between L1 and L2. More students wrote position
restatements in L2 than in L1. In 20 out of 30 (66.6%) in L2, the writer’s opinion on
the topic was re-presented or what was discussed in the text was summarized. The
remaining 9 (30%) presented neither opinion nor summary in the final part of the
L2 writing and only one of the writers’ only statement of opinion was located at the
end of his essay. On the other hand, in L1, 12 (40%) had summary statements,
whereas 18 (60%) had neither opinion nor summary in the final section.
How did those writers who had no summary statements finish their texts?
They seem to have stopped when they finished writing the last reason. Thus, lack of
a summary statement suggests that these writers did not think of a concluding
remark placed in final position. There were seven participants who had no summary
statement in either L1 or L2 (4, 19, 20, 24, 25, 28, 29; Table 1). For example,
Writer 4’s L1/L2 texts finished with the final reason. An examination of the final
elements in some students’ essays also revealed the possibility of a mismatch
between the writer’s intended meaning and the expressed meaning (i.e., the readers’
probable interpretation).
In summary, there was not much difference found in organizational patterns
between L1 and L2 argumentative writing. The students showed their preference for
the initial positioning of their main idea, deductive type organization, and to a lesser
extent the presence of a summary statement for both L1 and L2 writing. In some
cases, however, there were differences between L1 and L2 texts in terms of the use
of general or neutral information as well as the location of main ideas. L1 texts
exhibited more variation. This could be accounted for partly by the use of less
conscious, more spontaneous writing processes in L1. Their prior L1/L2 writing
instruction or experience has presumably exerted an influence on their writing. The
results suggest that deductive patterns may not be difficult for Iranian students to
learn to employ especially in their L2 writing, and instruction can be effective in
this respect.
144
Naser RASHIDI and Zahra ALIMORAD DASTKHEZR
Research Question Set 2
Descriptive statistics and reliability
Tables 2 and 3 show descriptive statistics for the total scores and the subscores of
L2 and L1 compositions, respectively. Reliability estimates for the L1/L2
composition scores are interrater reliability estimates based on the coefficient alpha
formula.
Table 2: Descriptive statistics and reliability estimates for L2 composition scores
Measure (total possible) M
SD Range Reliability estimates
Content (30)
20.86 4.51 18
.73
Organization (20)
16.33 1.68 7.00
.66
Vocabulary (20)
15.46 1.75 6.00
.70
Language use (25)
15.80 2.17 8.00
.69
Mechanics (5)
2.93
.69 2.00
.72
Total (100)
71..46 7.85 33.00
.93
Table 3: Descriptive statistics and reliability estimates for L1 composition scores
Measure (total possible) M
SD
Range Reliability estimates
Content (20)
16.53 2.17 10.00
.61
Organization (20)
16.00 2.22 10.00
.53
Structure (20)
16.13 2.11 8.00
.59
Style (20)
15.90 2.17 8.00
.58
Mechanics (20)
15.53 2.81 10.00
.73
Total (100)
80.10 10.70 46.00
.75
The interrater reliability for the L1/L2 total scores was acceptable (0.75 and 0.93,
respectively). Because L1/L2 organization and total scores were used in the final
analysis of the present study, the results concerning organization should be treated
with caution.
In the present study, the total score was considered to reflect overall text
quality in L1/L2. On the surface, there do not seem to be salient differences
between the two languages. The total composition mean was 71.46 (L2) versus
80.10 (L1). In terms of percentages, overall the participants scored better in L1.
Nevertheless, the L1/L2 scores should not be compared within the same writer
because different scales were used to evaluate L1/L2 compositions. The L2
organization mean was 16.33, and the students’ scores ranged between 55 and 88,
that is, from ‘‘good to average,’’ to “excellent to very good” according to Jacobs et
al.’s (1981) Profile. On the other hand, the L1 organization mean was 16, and the
scores ranged from 50 to 90. These findings concerning organization may imply
that many participants have developed organizational competence in L2 the same as
their organizational competence in L1. Therefore, many of the participants still need
to learn to improve organization to write logically connected or well-organized
sentences/paragraphs in both L1 and L2.
JoLIE 2:1 (2009)
Correlations among L1/L2 composition scores
Table 4: Correlation matrix for L1/L2 composition scores
1
2
3
4
5
1. L2 total
1.00
2. L2 content
.82** 1.00
3. L2 organization .74** .44* 1.00
4. L2 vocabulary
.64** .30 .36* 1.00
5. L2 language use .67** .22 .60** .55** 1.00
6. L2 mechanics
.43* .29 .31
.08
.35
7. L1 total
.18
.35 -.25
.29
-.13
8. L1 content
.23
.41* -.21
.26
-.09
9. L organization
.19
.38* -.28
.29
-.10
10. L1 structure
.18
.32 -.23
.35
-.12
11. L1 style
.16
.28 -.29
.31
-.04
12. L1 mechanics .11
.28 -.19
.17
-.23
*p < .05
** p < .01
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1.00
.10
.11
.06
.05
.11
.12
1.00
.93**
.96**
.95**
.92**
.88**
1.00
.93**
.86**
.85**
.74**
1.00
.90** 1.00
.86** .92** 1.00
.81** .78** .72** 1.00
JoLIE 2:1 (2009)
A Pearson correlation coefficient matrix (Table 4) revealed that all the subscores of
L2 composition had significant positive correlations with the L2 total score.
Similarly, all the subscores of L1 composition had significant positive correlations
with the L1 total score. Furthermore, L2 subscores were significantly correlated with
each other except for mechanics, and so were L1 subscores except for a few items.
However, none of the L1 composition subscores or total score had significant
correlations with the L2 total score or subscores except for content and organization.
In particular, L1/L2 total scores had no significant correlations with each other, and
neither did L1/L2 organization scores. Only L1/L2 content scores have significant
correlations with each other indicating that the two compositions had the same
subject and therefore, the same content.
The lack of significant correlations found between L1 and L2 writing in the
present study might have partly resulted from using different scales for L1 Persian
and L2 English writing. The question of which type of scales would be appropriate
measures to use for research dealing with more than one language should be further
investigated before reaching any consensus. Comparative studies of L1/L2 writing
would need a much larger number of raters as well as consideration of rater
background.
More specifically, the present study’s participants were homogeneous in
terms of L2 writing experience and L2 proficiency. The effects of previous writing
experience on L2 writing have been found to be significant (e.g., Sasaki & Hirose
1996), and cannot be ignored. The relatively homogeneous student writers in terms
of L2 proficiency and instructional background in the present study showed this kind
of tendency in their argumentative writing.
Comparisons of L1/L2 organization and total scores
Regarding the statistical differences between L1 and L2 organization and total
scores, the results of paired t-test revealed that the differences were significant only
in the case of total scores (sig.=.00) and not in the case of organization scores (sig.=
.56). Among the present participants, good L2 writers did not necessarily write well
in L1. The student who got the best total score in L2 also scored well in L1, whereas
the third best L2 writer got a relatively low score in L1. There were also opposite
cases of good L1 writers who did not write as well in L2. Because L1 organization
had a relatively low reliability, the results concerning organization should be treated
with caution.
Nevertheless, a similar tendency toward diversity seems to hold true for their
organization scores. Good organizers in L2 did not necessarily correspond to those in
L1. Thus, the present study found that student L2 writing ability did not necessarily
correspond to that of L1 in a relatively intermediate L2 proficiency group. Other
factors such as motivation for writing and interest in the topic might have exerted an
influence on their L1/L2 writing. When writing on the same topic the second time in
L1, some students might have lost interest in writing, and others could have been
more motivated to write.
A Comparison of English and Persian … 147
Relations between rhetorical patterns and evaluation
With regard to the relation between rhetorical patterns and evaluation, the present
study did not lead to the conclusion that the use of deductive patterns resulted in
better organization/text. Although fewer students chose inductive over deductive
patterns in L1, the inductive users (16, 23, 28) scored above the mean scores in both
the organization and the total scores of their L1 compositions. The use of inductive
patterns does not seem to be directly related to lower evaluation.
The results also showed the inverse, that is, that the use of deductive patterns
did not simply lead to higher evaluation of organization and text quality. These
results imply that the choice of organizational patterns is not the only factor that
contributes to quality of text organization or overall text quality. Other factors such
as coherence and connection between/within paragraphs also contribute to the quality
of organization, and these other features may carry more weight in evaluation than
the choice of organizational patterns does (Kobayashi & Rinnert 1996).
Conclusion
The present study revealed that (1) Iranian EFL student-writers used deductive
organizational patterns in L2, and to a lesser degree in L1; (2) despite overall
similarities between L1 and L2 organizational patterns, there was no significant
correlation between L1 and L2 organization scores; (3) L2 text quality (represented
in terms of the total score) did not correlate with L1 text quality; (4) organization and
text quality of L2 significantly differed from that of L1; (5) the use of an inductive
pattern in L1 did not necessarily result in low evaluation in either total or
organization scores; (6) features other than the choice of organizational patterns seem
to be more closely related to organization quality scores; and (7) although the results
hinted at instructional influence on their organizational patterns, some students
apparently had developmental problems in argumentative writing not only in L2 but
also in L1. Furthermore, analysis of the students L1/L2 argumentative texts showed
that students favored a deductive type organizational pattern, regardless of language,
for argumentative writing.
In conclusion, there was not much difference found in organizational
patterns between L1 and L2 argumentative writing. The students showed their
preference for the initial positioning of their main idea, deductive type organization,
and to a lesser extent the presence of a summary statement for both L1 and L2
writing. In some cases, however, there were differences between L1 and L2 texts in
terms of the use of general or neutral information as well as the location of main
ideas. L1 texts exhibited more variation. This could be accounted for partly by the
use of less conscious, more spontaneous writing processes in L1. Their prior L1/L2
writing instruction or experience has presumably exerted an influence on their
writing. The results suggest that deductive patterns may not be difficult for Iranian
students to learn to employ especially in their L2 writing, and instruction can be
effective in this respect.
148
Naser RASHIDI and Zahra ALIMORAD DASTKHEZR
The results also showed that the use of deductive patterns did not simply lead
to higher evaluation of organization and text quality. These results imply that the
choice of organizational patterns is not the only factor that contributes to quality of
text organization or overall text quality. Other factors such as coherence and
connection between/within paragraphs also contribute to the quality of organization,
and these other features may carry more weight in evaluation than the choice of
organizational patterns does.
The findings of this study concerning organization may imply that many
participants have developed organizational competence in L2 the same as their
organizational competence in L1. Therefore, many of the participants still need to
learn to improve organization to write logically connected or well-organized
sentences/ paragraphs in both L1 and L2.
The findings of this study are consistent with Kubota’s findings (1998) who
found that many Japanese students’ L1/L2 texts were organized similarly, and L1/L2
organization scores correlated positively in both types of writing. His results and the
results of the present study seem to suggest that EFL Japanese and Iranian students
write not so differently in L1 and L2 in terms of organization.
We can conclude from this study that these differences in writing styles are
the results of conventions followed in schools; and we also should warn not to draw
any conclusion about the writing styles of a country based on these findings because
the subjects were students who were still learning to write, and their writing styles
did not reflect those of professional writers.
Another point is that we cannot discuss student L2 organizational patterns
without taking into consideration student L1 and L2 writing background in terms of
writing conventions, instruction, and experience, as well as L2 proficiency level.
Limitations and suggestions for further research
The small sample size and its selective nature may limit the generalizability of the
results; thus, the findings should be confirmed with a larger sample of participants. It
is also important to confirm the results with different topics or types of tasks other
than argumentative writing in a short period of time, or with different groups of
students such as those with higher or lower L2 proficiency levels. In particular, the
study would need to be extended to validate its findings with non-English major
Iranian students who have little background in L2 writing instruction/experience,
unlike the participants of the present study. They may constitute a more appropriate
participant group to investigate the effects of L1 writing instruction/experience on L2
writing.
Despite the limitations, the present study suggests several directions for
future research. First, the relation between L1 and L2 organizational patterns needs
further investigation. The results of this study imply that multi-faceted factors are
involved in students’ choices of L1/L2 organizational patterns. Both writer-related
factors, such as instructional background and perceptions about good organization,
and other factors like task (including time) had influences on their choices. Besides
A Comparison of English and Persian … 149
conducting large-scale research, it is equally important for studies within the
contrastive rhetoric tradition to examine these factors in much greater depth. For
example, the effects of L1 writing experience and instruction on L2 writing are
required to elucidate whether and how such prior writing experience affects students’
choices of essay organization in L2. Those L2 writers who have not yet acquired
sufficient organizational ability in L1 argumentative writing may need such writing
experience in L1, which can then potentially benefit their L2 argumentative writing.
Alternatively, L1 argumentative writing experience may not be a necessary condition
for L2 organizational ability to develop. L2 writing instruction and experience may
be transferable to L1 writing. These issues remain for further study.
Finally, regarding the factor of readers, L1 and L2 readers’ perceptions of
good organization and writing should also be addressed in more in-depth studies. It
may be possible to make comparisons between English-speaking and Persianspeaking readers’ perceptions and expectations of argumentative organizations. Both
groups may share similar organizational patterns or schema.
References
Carroll, J. A. (1960). Vectors of prose style. In: T.A. Sebeok (ed.). Style in language (pp.
283-292). New York: Technology Press.
Clyne, M., G. (1980). Writing, testing, and culture. The Secondary Teacher, 11, 13-16.
Clyne, M., G. (1981). Culture and discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics, 5, 61-66.
Clyne, M., G. (1987). Cultural differences in the organization of academic texts: English and
German. Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 211-247.
Connor, U. (1984). Recall of text: Differences between first and second language readers.
TESOL Quarterly, 18(2), 239-256.
Connor, U. (1990). Linguistic/rhetorical measures for international persuasive student
writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 24, 67–87.
Farhady, H., Jafarpoor, A., & Birjandi, P. (1994). Language skills testing: From theory to
practice. Tehran: SAMT.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (1990). Second language writing: Assessment issues. In B. Kroll (Ed.),
Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 69–87). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Hinds, J. (1987). Reader vs. writer responsibility: A new typology. In: U., Connor and R., B.
Kaplan (eds.). Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text. (pp. 141-152). Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Hirose, K. (2003). Comparing L1 and L2 organizational patterns in the argumentative writing
of Japanese EFL students. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 181-209.
150
Naser RASHIDI and Zahra ALIMORAD DASTKHEZR
Hirose, K., & Sasaki, M. (1994). Explanatory variables for Japanese students’ expository
writing in English: An exploratory study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 203–229.
Jacobs, H. L., Zinkgraf, S. A., Wormuth, D. R., Hartfiel, V. F., & Hughey, J. B. (1981).
Testing ESL composition: A practical approach. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Kaplan, R., B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education. Language
Learning, 16, 1-20.
Kobayashi, H., & Rinnert, C. (1996). Factors affecting composition evaluation in an EFL
context: Cultural rhetorical pattern and readers’ background. Language Learning, 46, 397–
437.
Kubota, R. (1992). Contrastive rhetoric of Japanese and English: A critical approach.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.
Kubota, R. (1998). An investigation of L1-L2 transfer in writing among Japanese university
students: Implications for contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 69–
100.
Liebman, J. (1992). Toward a new contrastive rhetoric: Differences between Arabic and
Japanese rhetorical instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 141–165.
Mohan, B. A., & Lo, W. A. Y. (1985). Academic writing and Chinese students: Transfer and
developmental factors. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 515–534.
Noor, R. (2001). Contrastive rhetoric in expository prose: Approaches and achievements.
Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 255-269.
Ostler, S., E. (1988). A study of the contrastive rhetoric of Arabic, English, Japanese, and
Spanish. Dissertation Abstracts International, 49(2), 245A-246A.
Purves, A., C. (1986). Rhetorical communities, the international student, and basic writing.
Journal of Basic Writing, 5(1), 38-51.
Rinnert, C., & Kobayashi, H. (2001). Differing perceptions of EFL writing among readers in
Japan. Modern Language Journal, 85, 189–209.
Sasaki, M., & Hirose, K. (1996). Explanatory variables for EFL students’ expository writing.
Language Learning, 46, 137–174.
Zellermayer, M. (1988). An analysis of oral and literate texts: Two types of reader-writer
relationships in Hebrew and English. In: B.A. Rafoth and D.L. Rubin (eds.). The social
construction of written communication. (pp. 287-303). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
A Comparison of English and Persian … 151
Appendix A
Macro-level patterns
1. Explanation (Collection): The writer’s opinion on the topic is presented and then
supporting reasons are enumerated. Explanation (Comparison): The writer’s opinion
on the topic is presented and then a supporting reason is presented by comparing or
contrasting two elements.
2. Induction: The main idea is placed at the end and preceding arguments constitute
supporting reason(s) for it. Induction (Collection): The writer’s opinion is realized in
the final section; the preceding arguments constitute premises or reasons which are
arranged in a form of enumeration.
Appendix B
In the name of God
Name:
Student number:
There has been a heated discussion about the issue of ‘school uniforms’ in the
readers’ column in an English newspaper. Some people think that high school
students should wear school uniforms, whereas others believe students should choose
what to wear at school. Now the editor of the newspaper is calling for the readers’
opinions. Suppose you are writing for the readers’ opinion column. Take one of the
positions described above, and write your opinion in English in at least one wellorganized paragraph.
Appendix C
‫ﺑﻪ ﻧﺎم ﺧﺪا‬
:‫ﴰﺎرﻩ داﻧﺸﺠﻮﻳﯽ‬
:‫ﻧﺎم وﻧﺎم ﺧﺎﻧﻮادﮔﯽ‬
. ‫در ﺳﺘﻮن ﺧﻮا ﻧﻨﺪﮔﺎن روزﻧﺎﻣﻪ ﮐﻴﻬﺎن ﻳﮏ ﲝﺚ داغ در ﻣﻮرد ﻣﻮﺿﻮع ﻟﺒﺎس ﻓﺮم ﻣﺪرﺳﻪ ﻣﻄﺮح ﺷﺪﻩ اﺳﺖ‬
‫در ﺣﺎﻟﯽ ﮐﻪ‬، ‫ﺑﻌﻀﯽ از ﻣﺮدم ﻓﮑﺮ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﻨﺪ ﮐﻪ داﻧﺶ ﺁﻣﻮزان د ﺑﻴﺮﺳﺘﺎن ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﻟﺒﺎس ﻓﺮم ﺑﭙﻮﺷﻨﺪ‬
‫اﮐﻨﻮن‬.‫ﻋﺪﻩ ای دﻳﮕﺮ ﻣﻌﺘﻘﺪﻧﺪﮐﻪ داﻧﺶ ﺁﻣﻮزان ﺧﻮد ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺑﮕﻴﺮﻧﺪ در ﻣﺪرﺳﻪ ﭼﻪ ﺑﭙﻮﺷﻨﺪ‬
‫ﺗﺼﻮر ﮐﻨﻴﺪ ﮐﻪ‬. ‫ﺳﺮدﺑﻴﺮ روزﻧﺎﻣﻪ ی ﮐﻴﻬﺎن ﻣﯽ ﺧﻮاهﺪ ﻧﻈﺮات ﺧﻮاﻧﻨﺪﮔﺎن را در اﻳﻦ زﻣﻴﻨﻪ ﺟﻮﻳﺎﺷﻮد‬
‫ ﻳﮑﯽ از اﻳﻦ دو ﻣﻮﺿﻊ را اﻧﺘﺨﺎب ﮐﻨﻴﺪ و‬.‫ﴰﺎ ﺑﺮای ﺳﺘﻮن ﻧﻈﺮات ﺧﻮاﻧﻨﺪﮔﺎن اﻳﻦ روزﻧﺎﻣﻪ ﻣﯽ ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻴﺪ‬
.‫ﻧﻈﺮ ﺧﻮد را ﺑﻪ ﻓﺎرﺳﯽ درﺑﺎرﻩ ی اﻳﻦ ﻣﻮﺿﻮع ﺑﻨﻮﻳﺴﻴﺪ‬
152
Naser RASHIDI and Zahra ALIMORAD DASTKHEZR
Appendix D
A sample of a student’s L2 writing
I agree with wearing school uniforms, but under some circumstances. My family and
I have always suffered from school uniform. The responsible people used to change
it each year. So, I had to buy a new one which had a new model and a new color.
After years of education we found our closets packed with an unbelievable number
of uniforms which each was different from the other. As a result, I have always hated
going back to school. However, it has its own benefits. One of them is that all the
students whether they are rich or poor wear the same as each other. Consequently,
the ones which are from high social class will forget about showing off in the school.
In our country it is used mostly for girls. I recommend that we start using it for
school boys too.
The same student’s L1 writing sample
،‫وﻗﺘﯽ ﮐﻪ داﻧﺶ ﺁﻣﻮز ﺑﻮدم از ﺧﺮﻳﺪن ﻟﺒﺎس ﻣﺪرﺳﻪ ﺑﻴﺰار ﺑﻮدم‬
‫ ﺑﻪ ﺧﺎﻃﺮ اﻳﻦ‬. ‫اﻟﺒﺘﻪ دﻟﻴﻠﺶ ﺁن ﻧﺒﻮد ﮐﻪ ﺑﺎ ﻟﺒﺎس ﻣﺪرﺳﻪ ﳐﺎﻟﻒ ﺑﻮدم‬
‫ﮐﻪ هﺮ ﺳﺎل ﺑﺰرﮔﱰ ﻣﯽ ﺷﺪم و ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﻟﺒﺎس ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﯽ ﺧﺮﻳﺪم ﺑﻪ ﳘﻴﻦ دﻟﻴﻞ‬
‫ ﺧﺎﻧﻮادﻩ ام ﳏﺘﻤﻞ هﺰﻳﻨﻪ ی زﻳﺎدی ﻣﯽ ﺷﺪﻧﺪ‬، ‫در ﻃﻮل دوران ﲢﺼﻴﻠﯽ ام‬
‫ اﻳﻨﮑﻪ ﳘﻪ ی ﺑﭽﻪ هﺎ از ﺛﺮوﲤﻨﺪ‬: ‫ از ﻳﮏ ﳊﺎظ ﺑﺎ ﻟﺒﺎس ﻣﺪرﺳﻪ ﻣﻮاﻓﻘﻢ‬.
‫ﺗﺎ ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ و ﻓﻘﻴﺮ ﳘﻪ ﻳﮑﺪﺳﺖ هﺴﺘﻨﺪ و ﮐﺴﯽ ﳕﯽ ﺗﻮاﻧﺪ ﺑﺎ ﻟﺒﺎس هﺎی ﳐﺘﻠﻒ‬
‫ هﻢ اﮐﻨﻮن‬. ‫ﻓﺨﺮ ﻓﺮوﺷﯽ ﮐﻨﺪ و ﻧﻈﺮ ﮐﺎدر ﺁﻣﻮزﺷﯽ را ﺑﻪ ﺧﻮد ﺟﻠﺐ ﮐﻨﺪ‬
‫از ﮐﻼس اول دﺑﺴﺘﺎن ﺗﺎ ﭘﻴﺶ داﻧﺸﮕﺎهﯽ داﻧﺶ ﺁﻣﻮزان ﻟﺒﺎس ﻣﺪرﺳﻪ ﻣﯽ‬
‫ﭘﻮﺷﻨﺪ و اﻳﻦ ﮐﺎر ﺧﻮﺑﯽ اﺳﺖ ﭼﻮن ﲤﺎم ﲤﺮﮐﺰﺷﺎن روی درس ﺧﻮاﻧﺪﻧﺸﺎن اﺳﺖ‬
‫ اﻟﺒﺘﻪ رﻧﮓ و ﻓﺮم اﻳﻦ ﻟﺒﺎس هﺎ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﲤﺎم اﻧﺘﺨﺎب ﺷﻮد و‬.
‫ﺑﻴﺸﱰ از رﻧﮓ هﺎی روﺷﻦ اﺳﺘﻔﺎدﻩ ﺷﻮد ﺗﺎ روﺣﻴﻪ ی ﺷﺎد و ﺑﺎ ﻧﺸﺎﻃﯽ را‬
. ‫ﺑﻪ داﻧﺶ ﺁﻣﻮزان ﺑﺪهﺪ‬