درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

An underlying theoretical point of this paper has been that if fundamental commitments and the questions of cultural identity that they bring with them (What is an X?) are understood in terms of functional analyses of the kind I have tried to give in the case of Islamic identity today, then there is scope to see these commitments as susceptible to various criticisms in the particular context of a conflict in which they might figure.  All this seems to me to offer far more scope and interest to moral philosophy than Williams allows it, even after granting to Williams the validity of the central role he gives to the idea of fundamental commitment and the validity of his critique of traditional moral philosophy. <br />  The paper has studied the question "What is a Muslim?" in the dialectic of a conflict arising out of a concern for Islamic Reform.  The conflict is one that arises because of moderate Muslims' fundamental commitment to a doctrine which contains features that are often effectively invoked by the absolutists whom moderate Muslims fundamentally oppose.  If a full analysis of the commitment reveals its defensive function which have disabled Muslims from a creative and powerful opposition to the absolutists, and if, moreover, this function of the commitment is diagnosed as itself based on a deep but common philosophical fallacy, it should be possible then for moderate Muslims to think there way out of this conflict and to transform the nature of their commitment to Islam, so that it is not disabling in that way. <br />The question of identity, "What is a Muslim?", then, will get very different answers before and after this dialectic about reform has played itself out.   The dialectic, thus, preserves the negotiability of the concept of identity and the methodological points I began with, at the same time as it situates and explains the urgency and fascination that such questions hold for us.

The present study compared the effect of cooperative group feedback and cooperative group writing techniques in writing classes. Accordingly, 90 male and female intermediate English language learners sat for a sample piloted Preliminary English Test and 60 who scored one standard deviation above and below the mean were selected as the main participants. Both groups were taught the same course book. Moreover, they received the same hours of instruction and teaching aids in the same physical environment; therefore, the most significant point of departure in the two experimental groups in the present study was the form of writing practices presented in the classroom. One group underwent the cooperative group writing while the other the cooperative feedback procedure throughout the treatment period. The findings of this study based upon the results gained from an independent sample t-test run on the two groups’ posttest mean scores revealed that the participants’ L2 writing improved more significantly in the cooperative group writing class compared to the cooperative group feedback. The findings of this study may be contributory to EFL teachers and syllabus designers in the process of developing more efficient second language writing courses.