英语交互式语言教学研究
|
摘要
大学英语教学大纲(修订本)要求培养学生的语言交际能力。大纲分析了大学英语教学的核心：语言能力和实用能力。
在交互性语言教学中，其教学目的是培养和发展学生使用外语作为交际工具的能力。它强调在实际教学实践中，不仅需要重视培养学生的语言能力——语言知识和语言的基本技能，也必须重视培养学生的交互能力。从根本上说，交际起源于交互。言语交互的内涵是接受和表达信息。在外语教学中，想要促进双向交流，就应激发与保持学生积极参与交互活动的兴趣。因此，本文尝试着对交互法及其在大学英语教学中的应用进行研究。
第一章：导论
传统语言教学法在中国的大学英语课堂上已盛行多年。传统的英语教学主要被语法翻译法所支配。教师通过解释语言的用法来控制课堂，而学习者的参与却微乎其微。结果中国的英语学习者能够分析句子结构﹑翻译文章，但用英语与人交流却相当薄弱。目前中国的语言教师已经意识到培养交互能力始终是语言教学的首要目标。他们让学习者通过小组活动来执行一些交际任务，期望这些任务能加强他们的语言培养。学生需要参加那些能产生兴趣和注意力的活动，这样言语交互就会水到渠成。所以，双向交流在语言学习的环境下是非常关键的。
第二章：交互性语言教学
本章对交互性语言教学的理论观点进行了全面的介绍。首先，有必要介绍交互性研究的理论基础。交互性研究是以克拉申的语言输入说和朗的交互说为基础的。根据克拉申的语言输入说（1980），学生们能够面对和理解的语言称为提高性输入，是第二语言习得的关键成分。由此可见，我们对交互法的理论基础有了一个大概的轮廓。
言语互动对语言教师来说是一个重要概念。在交际语言教学领域里，言语交互是交流的核心。我们发送信息﹑接受信息；在上下文环境中解释信息；我们磋商彼此之间要表达的信息；我们共同努力来达到目的。Wilga Rivers把交互定义为：“通过交互，当学生听或读真实的语言材料时，能增加他们的语言储备，甚至是同伴的讨论﹑幽默短剧﹑共同解决任务﹑对话等的语言输出也能增加他们的语言储备。学生们可以利用他们所拥有的
语言——所有学到或随意接触的东西——进行真实的交互，即使在初级阶段，他们也能用这种方式学会应用语言的伸缩性”（1987：4-5）。当学生的注意力集中在接受和传递真实信息的时候，他们就能够熟练与精通地运用语言。
交互性语言教学的本质特征是以学生为中心，而不是以老师为中心。课堂上所有出席的学生都是管理者。所以我们鼓励学生参加课堂言语互动，改错可以被忽略。课堂言语互动的最后一个特点是教学活动是以小组的形式展开的。
交互式教学法有其独特的教学原理。布朗（2001）提出的教学原理是形成交互式教学法的理论基础，其中有：自动化能力﹑内在动机﹑策略开发﹑冒险﹑语言与文化衔接﹑交际能力。提高课堂言语互动的手段之一是增加学生运用修饰及社交交互策略。为了达到交流的目的，修饰交互策略与参与者有关，这些参与者在对特殊的语言实际应用有问题时需要帮助。社交交互不是运用特别的语言，并且使参与者在任何情况下都能扮演较好的交流者。这些策略的训练对所有有效的互动都是必要的。本章，我还对通过有效小组活动达到交互提供了一些指导原则。小组活动能给学生提供更多的交流机会，并被认为是交互性语言教学的本质特征。此活动具有一系列的优势，它能促进积极的教学气候，更重要的是激发学习者学习，并能产生交互性语言，进而促进学习者彼此之间的合作。尽管我们对大学英语课堂上的小组活动持有乐观态度，我们也不能否认这样一个事实，即学习者还不愿意磋商彼此的观点。最重要的原因是中国学生被语法翻译法所影响的特征。因此为了提高学习者的交互能力，把交互式教学法应用到大学英语教学中是绝对紧迫和必要的。
第三章：交互法在大学英语教学中的应用
交互性语言教学为大学英语阅读教学提供了宝贵的指导原则。虽然中国教育有其独特的历史背景，但这些原则也为课堂言语交互提供了一些实际的指导。
为什么要应用交互法，首先我们应该把中国大学英语教学中现存的问题考虑进去。许多教师和学习者已经习惯了传统教学法因而忽视了语言及语言教学的本质。交互性语言教学提倡学生应该学习真实的并且跟他们息息相关的语言知识。
本文的研究主要和课堂言语互动有关。学生与学生之间，教师与学生之间的互动是主要的，并构成了交流的核心。本文研究的主要意图之一是通过多样化的交互活动来探索大学英语课堂上交互式语言教学模式。学生参加的各种各样的活动有双人交互活动﹑小组讨论和全班活动。我们班学生用的课本是上海外语教育出版社出版的“大学英语”（第一册，1999）。开展双人交互活动时，学生们相互交谈﹑彼此倾听。这时彼此之间大量的言语互动就开始了。小组讨论需要每位成员共同的努力。全班活动要求每位同学的参与。这些活动的目的是为后面阅读课的交互提供必要的教学环境。
Widdowson(1986) 把阅读定义为交际活动。Alderson 和Urquhart(1984) 认为读者和读物之间是动态交际。他们认为读物本身不包含意义；但他们有意义的潜力。这种潜力的实现就在于
The newly revised syllabus (1999) of college English requires the students to develop the comprehensive ability to communicate in English. The syllabus analyzes the focus of the college English teaching: linguistic ability and pragmatic ability.
In interactive language teaching, the teaching goal is to train and develop the students’ ability to communicate in a foreign language as an instrument, laying emphasis not only on developing the students’ linguistic competence (i.e. their language knowledge and basic language skills), but also their interactive competence. Communication derives essentially from interaction. Interaction implies both reception and expression of messages. To promote interaction in another language we must maintain a lively attention and active participation among our students. This thesis attempts to make a study on the interactive approach and its applications to college English teaching.
Chapter One Introduction
The traditional language teaching method has been prevalent in Chinese college English classrooms for years. English teaching is dominated by grammar-translation method. The teacher dominates the classroom by explaining the usage of language during all the class hours with less participation of learners. Consequently, the English learners in China can analyze sentence structures and translate the passages, but they are relatively weak in interacting in English with others. Some language teachers in China have now realized that the primary objective of language teaching is to develop interactive competence. They give learners communicative tasks to perform through group work in an expectation that such tasks will add to learners’ language development. Students need to participate in activities that engage their interest and attention, so that interaction becomes natural and desirable. So interaction is very important in language-learning situations.
Chapter Two Interactive Language Teaching
This chapter provides an overall introduction of the interactive approach. It is necessary to discuss the theoretical basis of interaction studies. Interaction research is based on Krashen’s input hypothesis and Long’s interaction
hypothesis. According to Krashen’s input hypothesis (1980), the language that students are exposed to and can understand, known as comprehension input, is the critical ingredient for second language acquisition. So we can get an outline of the theoretical bases on which the interactive approach is based.
Interaction is an important concept for language teachers. In the era of communicative language teaching, interaction is the heart of communication. We send out messages; we receive messages; we explain them in a context; we negotiate meanings; and we work together to accomplish certain purposes. Wilga Rivers defines interaction as “Through interaction, students can increase their language store as they listen to or read authentic linguistic material, or even the output of their fellow students in discussions , skits , joint problem—solving tasks, or dialogue journals. In interaction, students can use all they possess of the language----all they have learned or casually absorbed----in real—life exchange, …Even at an elementary stage, they learn in this way to exploit the elasticity of language”(1987:4-5). Students achieve proficiency in using a language when their attention is concentrated on conveying and receiving authentic messages.
The most obvious characteristic of classroom interaction is that teaching is more student-centered than teacher-centered. Classroom performance is managed by all present. So that students are encouraged to be involved in the classroom interaction, error correction may be infrequent or absent. The final characteristic of EFL classroom interaction is that most activities in language classroom teaching are carried out in groups.
The interactive approach has its own primary principles, following H.D.Brown(2001) the principles go as follows: automaticity; the intrinsic motivation principle; strategic investment
在交互性语言教学中，其教学目的是培养和发展学生使用外语作为交际工具的能力。它强调在实际教学实践中，不仅需要重视培养学生的语言能力——语言知识和语言的基本技能，也必须重视培养学生的交互能力。从根本上说，交际起源于交互。言语交互的内涵是接受和表达信息。在外语教学中，想要促进双向交流，就应激发与保持学生积极参与交互活动的兴趣。因此，本文尝试着对交互法及其在大学英语教学中的应用进行研究。
第一章：导论
传统语言教学法在中国的大学英语课堂上已盛行多年。传统的英语教学主要被语法翻译法所支配。教师通过解释语言的用法来控制课堂，而学习者的参与却微乎其微。结果中国的英语学习者能够分析句子结构﹑翻译文章，但用英语与人交流却相当薄弱。目前中国的语言教师已经意识到培养交互能力始终是语言教学的首要目标。他们让学习者通过小组活动来执行一些交际任务，期望这些任务能加强他们的语言培养。学生需要参加那些能产生兴趣和注意力的活动，这样言语交互就会水到渠成。所以，双向交流在语言学习的环境下是非常关键的。
第二章：交互性语言教学
本章对交互性语言教学的理论观点进行了全面的介绍。首先，有必要介绍交互性研究的理论基础。交互性研究是以克拉申的语言输入说和朗的交互说为基础的。根据克拉申的语言输入说（1980），学生们能够面对和理解的语言称为提高性输入，是第二语言习得的关键成分。由此可见，我们对交互法的理论基础有了一个大概的轮廓。
言语互动对语言教师来说是一个重要概念。在交际语言教学领域里，言语交互是交流的核心。我们发送信息﹑接受信息；在上下文环境中解释信息；我们磋商彼此之间要表达的信息；我们共同努力来达到目的。Wilga Rivers把交互定义为：“通过交互，当学生听或读真实的语言材料时，能增加他们的语言储备，甚至是同伴的讨论﹑幽默短剧﹑共同解决任务﹑对话等的语言输出也能增加他们的语言储备。学生们可以利用他们所拥有的
语言——所有学到或随意接触的东西——进行真实的交互，即使在初级阶段，他们也能用这种方式学会应用语言的伸缩性”（1987：4-5）。当学生的注意力集中在接受和传递真实信息的时候，他们就能够熟练与精通地运用语言。
交互性语言教学的本质特征是以学生为中心，而不是以老师为中心。课堂上所有出席的学生都是管理者。所以我们鼓励学生参加课堂言语互动，改错可以被忽略。课堂言语互动的最后一个特点是教学活动是以小组的形式展开的。
交互式教学法有其独特的教学原理。布朗（2001）提出的教学原理是形成交互式教学法的理论基础，其中有：自动化能力﹑内在动机﹑策略开发﹑冒险﹑语言与文化衔接﹑交际能力。提高课堂言语互动的手段之一是增加学生运用修饰及社交交互策略。为了达到交流的目的，修饰交互策略与参与者有关，这些参与者在对特殊的语言实际应用有问题时需要帮助。社交交互不是运用特别的语言，并且使参与者在任何情况下都能扮演较好的交流者。这些策略的训练对所有有效的互动都是必要的。本章，我还对通过有效小组活动达到交互提供了一些指导原则。小组活动能给学生提供更多的交流机会，并被认为是交互性语言教学的本质特征。此活动具有一系列的优势，它能促进积极的教学气候，更重要的是激发学习者学习，并能产生交互性语言，进而促进学习者彼此之间的合作。尽管我们对大学英语课堂上的小组活动持有乐观态度，我们也不能否认这样一个事实，即学习者还不愿意磋商彼此的观点。最重要的原因是中国学生被语法翻译法所影响的特征。因此为了提高学习者的交互能力，把交互式教学法应用到大学英语教学中是绝对紧迫和必要的。
第三章：交互法在大学英语教学中的应用
交互性语言教学为大学英语阅读教学提供了宝贵的指导原则。虽然中国教育有其独特的历史背景，但这些原则也为课堂言语交互提供了一些实际的指导。
为什么要应用交互法，首先我们应该把中国大学英语教学中现存的问题考虑进去。许多教师和学习者已经习惯了传统教学法因而忽视了语言及语言教学的本质。交互性语言教学提倡学生应该学习真实的并且跟他们息息相关的语言知识。
本文的研究主要和课堂言语互动有关。学生与学生之间，教师与学生之间的互动是主要的，并构成了交流的核心。本文研究的主要意图之一是通过多样化的交互活动来探索大学英语课堂上交互式语言教学模式。学生参加的各种各样的活动有双人交互活动﹑小组讨论和全班活动。我们班学生用的课本是上海外语教育出版社出版的“大学英语”（第一册，1999）。开展双人交互活动时，学生们相互交谈﹑彼此倾听。这时彼此之间大量的言语互动就开始了。小组讨论需要每位成员共同的努力。全班活动要求每位同学的参与。这些活动的目的是为后面阅读课的交互提供必要的教学环境。
Widdowson(1986) 把阅读定义为交际活动。Alderson 和Urquhart(1984) 认为读者和读物之间是动态交际。他们认为读物本身不包含意义；但他们有意义的潜力。这种潜力的实现就在于
The newly revised syllabus (1999) of college English requires the students to develop the comprehensive ability to communicate in English. The syllabus analyzes the focus of the college English teaching: linguistic ability and pragmatic ability.
In interactive language teaching, the teaching goal is to train and develop the students’ ability to communicate in a foreign language as an instrument, laying emphasis not only on developing the students’ linguistic competence (i.e. their language knowledge and basic language skills), but also their interactive competence. Communication derives essentially from interaction. Interaction implies both reception and expression of messages. To promote interaction in another language we must maintain a lively attention and active participation among our students. This thesis attempts to make a study on the interactive approach and its applications to college English teaching.
Chapter One Introduction
The traditional language teaching method has been prevalent in Chinese college English classrooms for years. English teaching is dominated by grammar-translation method. The teacher dominates the classroom by explaining the usage of language during all the class hours with less participation of learners. Consequently, the English learners in China can analyze sentence structures and translate the passages, but they are relatively weak in interacting in English with others. Some language teachers in China have now realized that the primary objective of language teaching is to develop interactive competence. They give learners communicative tasks to perform through group work in an expectation that such tasks will add to learners’ language development. Students need to participate in activities that engage their interest and attention, so that interaction becomes natural and desirable. So interaction is very important in language-learning situations.
Chapter Two Interactive Language Teaching
This chapter provides an overall introduction of the interactive approach. It is necessary to discuss the theoretical basis of interaction studies. Interaction research is based on Krashen’s input hypothesis and Long’s interaction
hypothesis. According to Krashen’s input hypothesis (1980), the language that students are exposed to and can understand, known as comprehension input, is the critical ingredient for second language acquisition. So we can get an outline of the theoretical bases on which the interactive approach is based.
Interaction is an important concept for language teachers. In the era of communicative language teaching, interaction is the heart of communication. We send out messages; we receive messages; we explain them in a context; we negotiate meanings; and we work together to accomplish certain purposes. Wilga Rivers defines interaction as “Through interaction, students can increase their language store as they listen to or read authentic linguistic material, or even the output of their fellow students in discussions , skits , joint problem—solving tasks, or dialogue journals. In interaction, students can use all they possess of the language----all they have learned or casually absorbed----in real—life exchange, …Even at an elementary stage, they learn in this way to exploit the elasticity of language”(1987:4-5). Students achieve proficiency in using a language when their attention is concentrated on conveying and receiving authentic messages.
The most obvious characteristic of classroom interaction is that teaching is more student-centered than teacher-centered. Classroom performance is managed by all present. So that students are encouraged to be involved in the classroom interaction, error correction may be infrequent or absent. The final characteristic of EFL classroom interaction is that most activities in language classroom teaching are carried out in groups.
The interactive approach has its own primary principles, following H.D.Brown(2001) the principles go as follows: automaticity; the intrinsic motivation principle; strategic investment
引文
Allwright, R. 1984. The Importance of Interaction in Classroom Language learning. Applied Linguistics, 5, 156-171.
Alderson, J. C., and A.H. Urquart. 1984. Reading in a Foreign Language. New York: Longman.
Brophy, J 1979. Teacher Behavior and its Effects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 733-750.
Brown, H.D. 1994. Teaching by Principles. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.
Breen, M., and Candlin, C.N. 1980. The Essentials of a Communicative Curriculum in Language Teaching. Applied Linguistics 89-112.
Brumfit, C.J. 1984. Communicative Methodology in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chi Guangming 2001. Guiding Students to Read Actively Through Intensive Reading. Teaching English in China (Quarterly). December 2001 Vol. 24 No.4.
Goodman, K.1971. Psycholinguistic Universals in the Reading Process. In The Psychology of Second Language Learning, P. Pimsleur and T. Quinn (Eds.), 135-142. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
H.Douglas Brown. 2001. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. China. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press
Hyland, K. 1991. Collaboration in the Language Classroom. Prospect 7.
Jack C. Richards & Charles Lockhart. 1996. Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classroom. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
Johnson, D.W. and Johnson, F.P.1987. Joining Together Group Theory and Group Skills. Prenctice-Hall International. Inc.
Krashen, S.D. 1980. The input hypothesis. In J.E. Alatis (Ed.), Current issues on bilingual education (pp. 144-158). Washington, D.C.: TESOL.
Krashen, S. 1981. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
Krashen, S.D.1982. Principles and Practices in Second Language Acquisition. New York: Pergamon.
Liu, Rong 1993. An Exploratory Study of Interaction Patterns in an ESL Classroom. Ann Arbor, Mich:UMI.
Long, Michael H., and Porter, Patricia.1985, “Group work, Interlanguage Talk, and Second Language Acquisition.” in TESOL Quarterly 19(2): 207-228.
Long, M, L. Adam, Mclean, M. and Castanos, F.1976, “Doing Things with Words: Verbal Interaction in Lockstep and Small Group Classroom Situations” in Fanselow and Crymes (eds.) on TESOL’76 Washington, D.C.TESAL.
Long, M.&G. Crookes. 1991. ‘Three Approaches to Task-based Syllabus Design’. TESOL Quarterly 26.
Long, M.H. 1981. Input, Interaction, and Second Language Acquisition. In H. Winitz(Ed), Native Language and Foreign Language Acquisition (pp.259-278).Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 379.
Long, M.H. 1983. Native Speaker/ Nonnative Speaker Conversation in the Second Language Classroom. In M.A.Clarke, & J. Hanscombe (Eds.), Pacific Perspectives on Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 207-225). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Mehan, H. 1979. Learning Lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University press.
Michael F. Graves. 1995. Effects of Previewing and Providing Background Knowledge on Taiwanese College Students’ Comprehension of American Short Stories. TESOL Quarterly 29, 4.
Parker, W.C. 1984. Developing Teacher’s Decision Making. Journal of
Experimental Education 52, 4: 220-6.
Patricia L. Carrell. 1989. Interactive Approaches to Second Language Reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Paulston, C.B. and M.N.Bruder 1976. Teaching English as a Second Language: Techniques and Procedures. Cambridge, Mass: Winthrop.
Pica, T.1992. The Texual Outcomes of Native Speaker-non-native Speaker Negotiation: What Do They Reveal About Second Language Learning? In C. Kramsch (Ed), Text and Context: Cross-disciplinary Perspective on Language Study. Lexington.
Qi Xi 1998. Warm-up Activities. Making Improvements in the Intensive Reading Course. Teaching English in China. December, 1998 Issue 32.
Rivers, Wilga M. 1981. Teaching Foreign-Language Skills. 2d ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rivers, Wilga M. (Ed.). 1987. Interactive Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Rivers, Wilga M. 1983. Communicating Naturally in a Second Language: Theory and Practice in language Teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, F.1971. Understanding Reading: a Psycholinguistic Analysis of Reading and Learning to Read. New York: Holt, Rinchart and Winston.
Taglieber L.K., Johnson L.L., & Yarbrough D.B 1988. Effects of Prereading Activities on EFL Reading by Brazilian College Students. TESOL Quarterly., 22,455-472.
Tricia Hedge .2002. Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom. Oxford University Press.
William Littlewood. 1981. Communicative Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
Wells, G., et al. 1981. Learning Through Interaction: The Study of Language Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Widdowson, H. G . 1987. ‘The Roles of Teacher and Learner.’ ELT Journal
41/2.
Wu Yingna 2002. Using Group Work Effectively: Suggestions on Using Group Work in ELT Classroom. Teaching English in China. March 2002 Vol. 25 No. 1.
Woods, D. 1991. Teachers’ Interpretations of Second Language Teaching Curricula. RELC Journal 22,2: 1-18.
Yael Bejarano and Tamar Levine. 1997. The Skilled Use of Interaction Strategies: Creating a Framework for Improved Small-Group Communicative Interaction in the Language Classroom. Elsevier Science Ltd. Great Britain.
Zhenhui Rao 1996. Reconciling Communicative Approaches to the Teaching of English with Traditional Chinese Methods. Research in the Teaching of English Volume 30, number 4.
陈国娟 1998. Application of the Communicative Approach to English Teaching----Percepts and Examples. 上海师范大学。
董济华 2002. Communicative Approach to Teaching Extensive Reading. 现代情报 第8期。
林卫萍 2001. An Investigation of Some Strategies for Reading Comprehension. 苏州大学。
吴春红 2001. A Research of the Application of the Communicative Approach to the College English Teaching in China. 南京师范大学。
吴薇薇 2000. An Empirical Study of Group/Dyad Interaction in the Chinese EFL Classroom. 浙江大学。
Alderson, J. C., and A.H. Urquart. 1984. Reading in a Foreign Language. New York: Longman.
Brophy, J 1979. Teacher Behavior and its Effects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 733-750.
Brown, H.D. 1994. Teaching by Principles. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.
Breen, M., and Candlin, C.N. 1980. The Essentials of a Communicative Curriculum in Language Teaching. Applied Linguistics 89-112.
Brumfit, C.J. 1984. Communicative Methodology in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chi Guangming 2001. Guiding Students to Read Actively Through Intensive Reading. Teaching English in China (Quarterly). December 2001 Vol. 24 No.4.
Goodman, K.1971. Psycholinguistic Universals in the Reading Process. In The Psychology of Second Language Learning, P. Pimsleur and T. Quinn (Eds.), 135-142. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
H.Douglas Brown. 2001. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. China. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press
Hyland, K. 1991. Collaboration in the Language Classroom. Prospect 7.
Jack C. Richards & Charles Lockhart. 1996. Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classroom. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
Johnson, D.W. and Johnson, F.P.1987. Joining Together Group Theory and Group Skills. Prenctice-Hall International. Inc.
Krashen, S.D. 1980. The input hypothesis. In J.E. Alatis (Ed.), Current issues on bilingual education (pp. 144-158). Washington, D.C.: TESOL.
Krashen, S. 1981. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
Krashen, S.D.1982. Principles and Practices in Second Language Acquisition. New York: Pergamon.
Liu, Rong 1993. An Exploratory Study of Interaction Patterns in an ESL Classroom. Ann Arbor, Mich:UMI.
Long, Michael H., and Porter, Patricia.1985, “Group work, Interlanguage Talk, and Second Language Acquisition.” in TESOL Quarterly 19(2): 207-228.
Long, M, L. Adam, Mclean, M. and Castanos, F.1976, “Doing Things with Words: Verbal Interaction in Lockstep and Small Group Classroom Situations” in Fanselow and Crymes (eds.) on TESOL’76 Washington, D.C.TESAL.
Long, M.&G. Crookes. 1991. ‘Three Approaches to Task-based Syllabus Design’. TESOL Quarterly 26.
Long, M.H. 1981. Input, Interaction, and Second Language Acquisition. In H. Winitz(Ed), Native Language and Foreign Language Acquisition (pp.259-278).Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 379.
Long, M.H. 1983. Native Speaker/ Nonnative Speaker Conversation in the Second Language Classroom. In M.A.Clarke, & J. Hanscombe (Eds.), Pacific Perspectives on Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 207-225). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Mehan, H. 1979. Learning Lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University press.
Michael F. Graves. 1995. Effects of Previewing and Providing Background Knowledge on Taiwanese College Students’ Comprehension of American Short Stories. TESOL Quarterly 29, 4.
Parker, W.C. 1984. Developing Teacher’s Decision Making. Journal of
Experimental Education 52, 4: 220-6.
Patricia L. Carrell. 1989. Interactive Approaches to Second Language Reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Paulston, C.B. and M.N.Bruder 1976. Teaching English as a Second Language: Techniques and Procedures. Cambridge, Mass: Winthrop.
Pica, T.1992. The Texual Outcomes of Native Speaker-non-native Speaker Negotiation: What Do They Reveal About Second Language Learning? In C. Kramsch (Ed), Text and Context: Cross-disciplinary Perspective on Language Study. Lexington.
Qi Xi 1998. Warm-up Activities. Making Improvements in the Intensive Reading Course. Teaching English in China. December, 1998 Issue 32.
Rivers, Wilga M. 1981. Teaching Foreign-Language Skills. 2d ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rivers, Wilga M. (Ed.). 1987. Interactive Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Rivers, Wilga M. 1983. Communicating Naturally in a Second Language: Theory and Practice in language Teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, F.1971. Understanding Reading: a Psycholinguistic Analysis of Reading and Learning to Read. New York: Holt, Rinchart and Winston.
Taglieber L.K., Johnson L.L., & Yarbrough D.B 1988. Effects of Prereading Activities on EFL Reading by Brazilian College Students. TESOL Quarterly., 22,455-472.
Tricia Hedge .2002. Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom. Oxford University Press.
William Littlewood. 1981. Communicative Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
Wells, G., et al. 1981. Learning Through Interaction: The Study of Language Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Widdowson, H. G . 1987. ‘The Roles of Teacher and Learner.’ ELT Journal
41/2.
Wu Yingna 2002. Using Group Work Effectively: Suggestions on Using Group Work in ELT Classroom. Teaching English in China. March 2002 Vol. 25 No. 1.
Woods, D. 1991. Teachers’ Interpretations of Second Language Teaching Curricula. RELC Journal 22,2: 1-18.
Yael Bejarano and Tamar Levine. 1997. The Skilled Use of Interaction Strategies: Creating a Framework for Improved Small-Group Communicative Interaction in the Language Classroom. Elsevier Science Ltd. Great Britain.
Zhenhui Rao 1996. Reconciling Communicative Approaches to the Teaching of English with Traditional Chinese Methods. Research in the Teaching of English Volume 30, number 4.
陈国娟 1998. Application of the Communicative Approach to English Teaching----Percepts and Examples. 上海师范大学。
董济华 2002. Communicative Approach to Teaching Extensive Reading. 现代情报 第8期。
林卫萍 2001. An Investigation of Some Strategies for Reading Comprehension. 苏州大学。
吴春红 2001. A Research of the Application of the Communicative Approach to the College English Teaching in China. 南京师范大学。
吴薇薇 2000. An Empirical Study of Group/Dyad Interaction in the Chinese EFL Classroom. 浙江大学。