Volume 21, Issue 4 ((July - August 2022)
Payesh 2022, 21(4): 421-427 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Ahmadi F, Mahdavi hezaveh M, Alavi Moghaddam S B. Content analysis of junior and senior high school English national textbooks in terms of health literacy. Payesh 2022; 21 (4) :421-427
URL: http://payeshjournal.ir/article-1-1799-en.html
URL: http://payeshjournal.ir/article-1-1799-en.html
1- Educational Research and Planning, Tehran, Iran
Abstract: (1517 Views)
Objective (s): Textbooks are the main educational resources in schools. The present study was conducted to analyze the content of high school English national textbooks in terms of the four dimensions of health literacy, i.e., accessing/obtaining information relevant to health, understanding information relevant to health, processing/appraising information relevant to health, applying/using information relevant to health.
Methods: This descriptive research was done using quantitative content analysis method. The unit of analysis was the sentence. The predetermined categories were used. The population consisted of all the English language books of high school. The level of attention of English national textbooks to health literacy were analyzed in the three health domains of health care, disease prevention and health promotion, as well as in the four dimensions of accessing, understanding, appraising, and applying.
Result: The findings showed that attention to the dimensions of accessing, appraising, and applying was neglected or very poor. Regarding the understanding dimension, some parts of the content in grade 8 and 9 was allocated to healthcare domain (7% and 10% respectively) and in grade 8 and 11 some parts (7% and 9%respectively) were allocated to health promotion. In addition, the findings showed that English national textbooks do not equip students with the ability to appraise and apply health information.
Conclusion: The English national textbooks have a unique occasion to provide students with learning opportunities arising from real life. To do so, there is a need to integrate different dimensions of health literacy into the content of these books.
Methods: This descriptive research was done using quantitative content analysis method. The unit of analysis was the sentence. The predetermined categories were used. The population consisted of all the English language books of high school. The level of attention of English national textbooks to health literacy were analyzed in the three health domains of health care, disease prevention and health promotion, as well as in the four dimensions of accessing, understanding, appraising, and applying.
Result: The findings showed that attention to the dimensions of accessing, appraising, and applying was neglected or very poor. Regarding the understanding dimension, some parts of the content in grade 8 and 9 was allocated to healthcare domain (7% and 10% respectively) and in grade 8 and 11 some parts (7% and 9%respectively) were allocated to health promotion. In addition, the findings showed that English national textbooks do not equip students with the ability to appraise and apply health information.
Conclusion: The English national textbooks have a unique occasion to provide students with learning opportunities arising from real life. To do so, there is a need to integrate different dimensions of health literacy into the content of these books.
type of study: Descriptive |
Subject:
Public Health
Received: 2021/12/6 | Accepted: 2022/08/22 | ePublished ahead of print: 2022/08/24 | Published: 2022/09/5
Received: 2021/12/6 | Accepted: 2022/08/22 | ePublished ahead of print: 2022/08/24 | Published: 2022/09/5
References
1. Sørensen K, Van den Broucke S, Fullam J, Doyle G, Pelikan J, Slonska Z, Brand H. Health literacy and public health: a systematic review and integration of definitions and models. BMC Public Health 2012; 12: 1-13 [DOI:10.1186/1471-2458-12-80]
2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Health Education Standards 2021. Available from https://www.cdc.gov/healthyschools/sher/standards/index.htm/ Sep 2021
3. Schulenkorf T, Krah V, Dadaczynski K, Okan O. (2021). Addressing health literacy in schools in Germany: Concept analysis of the mandatory digital and media literacy school curriculum. Frontiers in Public Health 2021; 9: 68738 [DOI:10.3389/fpubh.2021.687389]
4. Zarcadoolas C, Pleasant A, Greer DS. Advancing health literacy: A framework for understanding and action. 1st Edition, Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, 2006
5. Paakkari L, Paakkari O. Health literacy as a learning outcome in schools. Health Education 2012; 112: 133-52 [DOI:10.1108/09654281211203411]
6. Rubene Z, Stars I, Goba L. Health literate child: Transforming teaching in school health education. In Lubkina, V., & Usca, S. (Eds.), Society. Integration. Education. Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference; 2015, May 22-23; Rezekne: Rezeknes Augstskola; 2015. Available from http://journals.ru.lv/index.php/SIE/article/view/314/422
7. Nutbeam D. Health literacy as a public health goal: a challenge for contemporary health education and communication strategies into the 21st century. Health Promotion International 2000; 15: 257-67 [DOI:10.1093/heapro/15.3.259]
8. Haas SA, Fosse NE. Health and the educational attainment of adolescents: Evidence from the NLSY97. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 2008; 49:178-92 [DOI:10.1177/002214650804900205]
9. Gómez-Pinilla F. Brain foods: the effects of nutrients on brain function. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2008; 9: 568-78 [DOI:10.1038/nrn2421]
10. Taras H. Nutrition and student performance at school. Journal of School Health 2005; 75:199-213 [DOI:10.1111/j.1746-1561.2005.00025.x]
11. Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution. Fundamental Reform Document of Education. Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution: Tehran 2012. Available from https://sccr.ir/Files/6609.pdf June 2021
12. Aghazadeh SA, Aldoory L, Mills T. Integrating Health Literacy into Core Curriculum: A Teacher‐Driven Pilot Initiative for Second Graders. Journal of School Health 2020; 90: 585-593 [DOI:10.1111/josh.12907]
13. Bruselius-Jensen M, Bonde AH, Christensen JH. Promoting health literacy in the classroom. Health Education Journal 2017; 76: 156-168 [DOI:10.1177/0017896916653429]
14. Drake SM, & Reid, J. L. Integrated curriculum as an effective way to teach 21st century capabilities. Asia Pacific Journal of Educational Research 2018; 1: 31-50 [DOI:10.30777/APJER.2018.1.1.03]
15. Nourian M. Textbook evaluation methods with emphasis on quantitative and qualitative content analysis. 2nd Edition, Shora Publications: Tehran, 2015
16. Snow C. Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. 1st Edition, Rand Corporation: Santa Monica, 2002
17. Krishna A, Thompson TL. Misinformation about health: A review of health communication and misinformation scholarship. American Behavioral Scientist 2021; 65: 316-32 [DOI:10.1177/0002764219878223]
18. Song S, Zhao YC, Song X, & Zhu Q. The Role of Health Literacy on Credibility Judgment of Online Health Misinformation (paper presented at: IEEE International Conference on Health Care Informatics Xi'an, China, Jun 10-13 2019). pp. 1-3. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337498081_The_Role_of_Health_Literacy_on_Credibility_Judgment_of_Online_Health_Misinformation [DOI:10.1109/ICHI.2019.8904844]
19. Zarocostas J. How to fight an infodemic. The Lancet 2020; 395: 676 [DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30461-X]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and Permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |