大学英语成功学习者综合培养路向研究：理论与实践
摘要
教育部于2007年颁发的《大学英语课程教学要求》(以下称《课程要求》)指出大学英语的教学目标是“培养学生的英语综合应用能力,特别是听说能力,使他们在今后学习、工作和社会交往中能用英语有效地进行交际,同时增强其自主学习能力,提高综合文化素养,以适应我国社会发展和国际交流的需要”。《课程要求》对词汇、语法和听说读写译各项技能的教学提出“一般”、“较高”和“更高”的语言级别要求,并采用全国大学英语四、六级考试来衡量该目标的教学效果。在《课程要求》的指导下,大学英语部优教材(如全新版《大学英语综合教程》)将“进行听、说、读、写、译多方面的语言操练”以及“着重培养学生的英语语言能力和综合应用能力”作为编写宗旨(李荫华2005:V),并且围绕篇章、词汇、语法以及各项技能的学习与操练编写每一册的单元内容。显然,《课程要求》对大学英语课程教学起着语言大纲的作用。
在单一的语言大纲指导下,大学英语存在教与学两方面的问题:
习惯上,教师把课本视为学期的教学内容,往往按照课本上的单元顺序向学生传授课本知识,缺乏根据学生的语言水平和能力制定教学目标,二次开发设计主题相关的教学内容等意识。学生的英语应用能力薄弱,主要表现为英语词汇量不足、语法意识不强、母语干扰严重、学习策略运用能力匮乏等问题。这些问题在地方普通高等学校中尤其突出。
戴炜栋和束定芳(1994:1)指出,外语习得受学习者的年龄、智力、语言能力、认知风格、性格、动机和态度等个人因素影响;受原有知识、学习者策略等学习过程因素影响;受环境因素影响,其中包括语言政策、外语教学政策和社会态度等社会环境因素以及大纲制定、课程设置、学习时间、学习材料、教师、教学法、测试等教育学因素。Ellis(1997)和Cook(2006)等人经过研究从不同的角度总结出“优秀语言学习者”的特征。总体上看,这些特征与学习策略紧密相关,说明“优秀语言学习者”能够很好地使用学习策略进行外语的学习和运用。对学习策略的学习与运用在Stern(1983,1992)的外语课程多维设计法以及Langacker(1999:99)的认知语法基于使用的模型中得到特别地强调。
论文在前人的研究基础上,以实现《课程要求》的教学目标为目的,以“优秀语言学习者”的特征为参照点,以温州大学为例,提出“大学英语成功学习者综合培养路向”,着重探讨如何培养学生英语语言的学习与运用能力。本“路向”中的“综合”是指根据《课程要求》实行大学英语语言大纲、交际大纲、内容(或文化)大纲和学习策略大纲整合,丰富了教学内容,改变了传统单一的语言大纲指导下的教学模式;实行主题与相关学科内容整合,推行认知语法自下而上、从具体到抽象的图式网络化教学,促进学生的分析能力和想象力的培养;实行课堂教学和课外网络自主学习整合,为学生提供学习和运用英语的机会和环境;实行教学与评估整合,切实推进英语的有效学习与教学。所谓“路向”,是指论文的教学研究路线,即学生的学习感知调查——学习者在认知风格、学能、智能、学习策略等方面存在的个体差异分析——英语非成功学习者学习策略运用能力培养——内容依托合作学习教学法对培养优秀英语学习者的实效性研究等等。
论文从二语习得、认知语法和外语教学等的理论角度开展“大学英语成功学习者的综合培养路向”研究,通过问卷调查、课堂测试、教师访谈等方式对作者学校03、08级学生的大学英语教学进行定量和定性研究,主要发现如下:
(1)原有知识对意义理解具有很大的作用,学生能够运用原有知识进行课堂学习或回答提问,课堂教学结合学生的原有知识能够促进有效教学;课堂互动越强,学生去上英语课的动机越高;女生比男生的英语学习动机高,对学习过程更有耐心,更擅于利用社会交际活动,在语言分析能力方面也强于男生。男生比女生更加喜欢交互学习,对课堂评估活动更加感兴趣,更加要求将技术导入英语评估中。总体上,男女生都认为形成性评估的效果比终结性评估的效果好。
(2)坚持课内、外说英语的学生,他们的听、说、读、写等技能得到综合提高。
(3)在语言学能方面,语言分析能力和机械记忆能力对语法知识产出具有重要作用。在认知方式方面,学生倾向于采用场独立或场依存的方式来理解意义,但两种方式在没有语境的支持下具有互补作用。
(4)在智能方面,成功英语学习者与非成功学习者对七种智能的强弱程度依次排序为人际交往、音乐、身体运动、言语—语言、逻辑—数理、内向自省和形象思维。其中,人际交往能力最强,形象思维能力最弱;成功学习者的人际交往、言语—语言和内向自省能力比非成功学习者强,而非成功学习者的逻辑—数理能力比成功学习者略胜一筹;两者的音乐、身体运动、形象思维能力相似。
(5)在学习策略方面,非成功英语学习者的学习策略运用能力较为薄弱,但是经过学习策略培训,他们的读写策略和对语言的敏感性得到提高。
(6)内容教学-合作学习法能够产生以下教学效果:①将教学重心移向学生,使学生拥有充分的交互学习机会,促进语言的可理解性输入和有意义产出;②确保单元教学目标多元化,促进内容(或文化)目标与语言目标融合,为单元学习提供语境、主题与合作学习活动,加强学生运用英语的真实体验;③形成性评估方法得到学生的肯定。
(7)实施内容教学-合作学习法的教师以及接受该教学法试验的成功英语学习者对该方法的教学效果感到满意。非成功英语学习者对合作学习方法感到满意,因此,内容教学-合作学习法对这些学生同样具有适用性。研究表明,论文的研究成果对大学英语优秀学习者培养具有成效性,可以在温州大学各年级的大学英语教学中使用,对其他同类高校的大学英语教学具有借鉴价值。但是,论文也存在着局限性,主要表现在以下几个方面:
(1)虽然作者已经尽最大的努力开展论文选题的研究,但是该研究还没有达到很高的标准。比如,内容教学-合作学习法只在2008级英语成功学习者中间进行尝试并取得成效,未能够在智力方面不存在很大差异的非成功英语学习者当中做实证研究。这一点不足将在2011级学生中进行弥补。
(2)由于作者知识有限,有关大学英语等级词汇、专业相关的通用英语词汇、英语习语、英语词组、文化词语、学习策略运用技巧等方面的语料数据库开发还未有探讨。该语料数据库将可以为该研究提出的“路向”的应用提供很大方便,希望以后对这方面感兴趣的学者继续研究。
(3)目前的改革背景还不能达到很好使用“路向”的高度。虽然该研究系2009年浙江省新世纪高等教育教学改革一类项目(项目编号:yb09053)的部分研究成果,但还没有立项为国家级课题,其成果应用受到一定的限制。对此,作者将努力寻求最新的理论支持,争取国家级课题立项。此外,“路向”对现有的教学内容、教学方法和学业评价体系提出了改革的要求,对教师提出再次开发教材的要求。这些要求需要教师转变观念,并在教学中投入大量的时间和精力。可喜的是,大学英语教师积极投入大学英语课程改革,具有在各自的教学风格中尝试应用“路向”的热情。随着他们学习掌握了本研究相关的外语教学理论,该“路向”必将在大学英语教学中得到推广与应用。
College English (CE) is a program set up by the Ministry of Education of China and learned by full-time non-English majors in four-year programs at the university level. The curriculum guide issued in 2007 for CE, termed College English Curriculum Requirements (CECR),states the following aim that CE is to pursue: to cultivate students’overall abilities of language application with focus on listening and speaking so that students will be able to communicate effectively in their future studies and careers as well as socializations, and at the same time enhance their ability of autonomous learning and general cultural awareness so as to meet the needs of China’s social development and international exchanges.
CECR involves three specific groupings broken down as (1) basic requirements, (2) intermediate requirements and (3) higher requirements. These are used as benchmarks to follow in teaching vocabulary, grammar and language skills to students of different language levels. In addition, CECR mandates a relationship between teaching and testing. CET 4 & 6 is adopted to evaluate whether or not students have reached the expectations of CECR upon the completion of their curriculum study.
Obviously, CECR works as the language syllabus to guide teaching of the CE program. Textbooks accepted as excellent materials for CE teaching and learning, have been compiled around CECR. For example, the textbook College English- Integrated Course regards the training of basic language skills of listening, speaking, reading, writing and translating as well as the training of students’comprehensive communicative competence as the aim and the guideline of textbook compilation ( Li (李荫华) 2005:V). Consequently, the textbook consists of such contents as texts, vocabulary, exercises in language study and use, skills practice, etc.
Due to the unidimensional language syllabus and textbook compilation around the syllabus, problems are found in existence in CE teaching and learning. For example, the teacher considers one textbook as the teaching content of one term, so the common teaching practice is teaching from the book through one unit after another in order. There are not many teachers who are aware of unit curriculum reorganization for their own classroom use according to students’language levels and competence. Consequently, students remain weak in applying English in different situations mainly because of their inability to expand on their vocabulary, lack of grammatical awareness, the interference of their mother language and weaknesses in their application of learning strategies. These are the main factors affecting successful English learning of the students especially from the average local universities such as Wenzhou University (WZU).
Professors Dai and Shu ((戴炜栋、束定芳)1994:1) point out that foreign language acquisition gets affected by the learner individual factors including age, intelligence, language aptitude, cognitive styles, personality, motivation and attitudes; by the factors of learning process including prior knowledge and learners strategies; and by environmental factors including social environment factors such as language policies, policies of foreign language teaching as well as social attitudes and educational factors involving syllabus composition, curriculum design, time for study, learning materials, teachers, methodology, testing, and so on.
Ellis (1997), Cook (2006) together with other researchers conclude the characteristics of GLLs in their own perspectives, which, as a whole, are closely related to learning strategies, indicating that GLLs are able to well apply learning strategies in language study and use. Stern (1983,1992) in his multidimensional curriculum approach stresses strategy learning and use which is also paid special attention to in Langacker’s (1999:99) usage-based model in cognitive grammar. Based on the related theories reviewed, the present study takes WZU as a case study to investigate ways to cultivate students’abilities of language learning and use by referring to the benchmarks set in CECR as well as the characteristics of GLLs. Thus, the Integrated Approach to the development of GLLs is proposed.
Integrated is meant in the Integrated Approach as follows:
(1) the integration of the four syllabuses into one unit teaching including the language syllabus, the communication syllabus, the content/culture syllabus, and the learning strategies syllabus, showing the enrichment of the teaching content, and transformation of the traditional uni-language syllabus teaching model. (2) the integration of a theme with its related subject, indicating in CE teaching the application of the approach of bottom-up schema in cognitive grammar to enhance students’abilities of analysis and imagination from the concrete to the abstract.
(3) the integration of classroom teaching and autonomous learning after class, providing students with opportunities and environments to learn and use English.
(4) the integration of teaching and evaluation, leading teaching and learning efficiency to be promoted. Approach is meant in the Integrated Approach as the following route of CE teaching and research: firstly, investigation of students’perceptions of EFL learning, teaching and evaluation; followed by analysis of learner individual differences in cognitive styles, language aptitude, intelligence, and learning strategies, etc.; then, ability cultivation of less successful students’learning strategy use, and lastly, effect exploration of the content-based-through-cooperative-learning method on the development of GLLs. The present study explores the Integrated Approach in the theoretic perspectives of L2 acquisition, cognitive grammar and EFL education with the quantitative research method and the qualitative research method. Through questionnaire survey, tests and interviews to investigate CE teaching and learning among the students of year 2003 and year 2008, the following findings are brought forth:
(1) Prior knowledge contributes to comprehension of meanings. Students can apply prior knowledge in learning or answering questions in the classroom. Teaching related to students’prior knowledge can achieve positive outcomes; the more interactive the English classroom is, the higher motivation the students have in coming to the classes. Compared between female and male students, female students have higher motivation in English learning, are more patient with the learning process, more social in communicative activities, and better in linguistic analysis; male students are more inclined to interactive learning, more interested in classroom evaluation, and have higher expectations of integrating technology into English assessment. As far as learning assessment is concerned, both males and females regard formative assessment as having better outcomes than summative assessment.
(2) The students who speak English both inside and outside the classroom can achieve overall development of listening, speaking, reading, writing, etc.
(3) In language aptitude, abilities of analysis and rote memory have great impacts on grammatical output. In cognitive styles students comprehend meanings by field-independence or field-dependence which tends to interact with each other without the support of a context.
(4) In intelligence preferences, the order for the seven types of intelligence arranged from high to low is interpersonal, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, linguistic, logical-mathematical, intrapersonal and visual-spatial intelligence. Interpersonal intelligence is on the top of the preference list, while spatial intelligence is on the bottom. The SSs are more inclined to interpersonal, linguistic and intrapersonal intelligence than the LSSs, while the LSSs are relatively stronger in logical-mathematical intelligence. There is no difference in musical, bodily-kinesthetic and spatial intelligence between them.
(5) The LSSs are weak in application of learning strategies, but after receiving strategy training, they perform better than before in applying strategies in learning and become more sensitive to the English language.
(6) The content-based-teaching-through-cooperative-learning method can bring forth the following teaching outcomes: The focus of teaching is shifted to the students who are able to have ample opportunities for interactive learning through which they can comprehensively input knowledge and meaningfully output language. The teaching objectives of a unit become multidimensional with the content/ culture objectives being integrated into the language objectives, which provides students with contexts, themes and cooperative learning activities so that they experience language use in an authentic way. The formative assessment method is accepted by the students.
(7) Both the SSs and the instructors of the EE as well as EE courses are satisfied with the content-based-teaching-through-cooperative-learning method. The LSSs are satisfied with cooperative learning. Thus, the teaching method accepted by the SSs can equally be appropriate to the LSSs.
Obviously, the Integrated Approach has been proved effective to the development of GLLs. However, limitations exist such as:
(1) Though the author conducted the research in her best endeavors, the present study is not of high research standards. For example, the content-based-teaching- through-cooperative-learning method was not experimented with the LSSs of year 2008 even though it achieved positive teaching outcomes from among the SSs who did not have many big differences from their less successful peers in intelligence. It is expected that this limitation will be eliminated with application of the Integrated Approach among the students of year 2011.
(2) With little expertise the author has not yet established a CE database for collection of formalized routines, chunks of knowledge, words with cultural connotations, discipline-related terms and expressions, learning strategies, etc. With this database, application of the Integrated Approach will be facilitated to a great extent. Such a database is hoped to develop by those who are interested in it.
(3) The innovation background for the Integrated Approach is not completely ready at present. While the present study is part of the research results of the provincial program - the 2009 Zhejiang New Century Teaching Reform Program (No.yb09053), it has not yet been approved to establish as a research program of national level. Consequently, its promotion and further application in CE teaching has been affected. Nevertheless, the author will seek more theoretical support by integrating related and also the latest theories both at home and abroad into the present study. In this way, the Integrated Approach will be refined for the better, and the research program of the desired level can be approved to set up.
Moreover, the Integrated Approach requires transforming teaching content, methodology, and the system of learning assessment in existence. It requires teachers to change their conventional conception regarding a curriculum, and to redesign the unit curriculum around a theme together with various related resources. Such requirements will take teachers a lot of time and energy.
Fortunately, CE teachers at WZU have shown great involvement in curriculum transformation and enthusiasm for applying the Integrated Approach in their teaching styles. With teachers’mastery of the knowledge related to theories of Stern’s multidimensional curriculum approach, Langacker’s usage-based model of cognitive grammar as well as other foreign language teaching theories, the Integrated Approach will be well promoted and accepted by WZU and other local universities as well.
在单一的语言大纲指导下,大学英语存在教与学两方面的问题:
习惯上,教师把课本视为学期的教学内容,往往按照课本上的单元顺序向学生传授课本知识,缺乏根据学生的语言水平和能力制定教学目标,二次开发设计主题相关的教学内容等意识。学生的英语应用能力薄弱,主要表现为英语词汇量不足、语法意识不强、母语干扰严重、学习策略运用能力匮乏等问题。这些问题在地方普通高等学校中尤其突出。
戴炜栋和束定芳(1994:1)指出,外语习得受学习者的年龄、智力、语言能力、认知风格、性格、动机和态度等个人因素影响;受原有知识、学习者策略等学习过程因素影响;受环境因素影响,其中包括语言政策、外语教学政策和社会态度等社会环境因素以及大纲制定、课程设置、学习时间、学习材料、教师、教学法、测试等教育学因素。Ellis(1997)和Cook(2006)等人经过研究从不同的角度总结出“优秀语言学习者”的特征。总体上看,这些特征与学习策略紧密相关,说明“优秀语言学习者”能够很好地使用学习策略进行外语的学习和运用。对学习策略的学习与运用在Stern(1983,1992)的外语课程多维设计法以及Langacker(1999:99)的认知语法基于使用的模型中得到特别地强调。
论文在前人的研究基础上,以实现《课程要求》的教学目标为目的,以“优秀语言学习者”的特征为参照点,以温州大学为例,提出“大学英语成功学习者综合培养路向”,着重探讨如何培养学生英语语言的学习与运用能力。本“路向”中的“综合”是指根据《课程要求》实行大学英语语言大纲、交际大纲、内容(或文化)大纲和学习策略大纲整合,丰富了教学内容,改变了传统单一的语言大纲指导下的教学模式;实行主题与相关学科内容整合,推行认知语法自下而上、从具体到抽象的图式网络化教学,促进学生的分析能力和想象力的培养;实行课堂教学和课外网络自主学习整合,为学生提供学习和运用英语的机会和环境;实行教学与评估整合,切实推进英语的有效学习与教学。所谓“路向”,是指论文的教学研究路线,即学生的学习感知调查——学习者在认知风格、学能、智能、学习策略等方面存在的个体差异分析——英语非成功学习者学习策略运用能力培养——内容依托合作学习教学法对培养优秀英语学习者的实效性研究等等。
论文从二语习得、认知语法和外语教学等的理论角度开展“大学英语成功学习者的综合培养路向”研究,通过问卷调查、课堂测试、教师访谈等方式对作者学校03、08级学生的大学英语教学进行定量和定性研究,主要发现如下:
(1)原有知识对意义理解具有很大的作用,学生能够运用原有知识进行课堂学习或回答提问,课堂教学结合学生的原有知识能够促进有效教学;课堂互动越强,学生去上英语课的动机越高;女生比男生的英语学习动机高,对学习过程更有耐心,更擅于利用社会交际活动,在语言分析能力方面也强于男生。男生比女生更加喜欢交互学习,对课堂评估活动更加感兴趣,更加要求将技术导入英语评估中。总体上,男女生都认为形成性评估的效果比终结性评估的效果好。
(2)坚持课内、外说英语的学生,他们的听、说、读、写等技能得到综合提高。
(3)在语言学能方面,语言分析能力和机械记忆能力对语法知识产出具有重要作用。在认知方式方面,学生倾向于采用场独立或场依存的方式来理解意义,但两种方式在没有语境的支持下具有互补作用。
(4)在智能方面,成功英语学习者与非成功学习者对七种智能的强弱程度依次排序为人际交往、音乐、身体运动、言语—语言、逻辑—数理、内向自省和形象思维。其中,人际交往能力最强,形象思维能力最弱;成功学习者的人际交往、言语—语言和内向自省能力比非成功学习者强,而非成功学习者的逻辑—数理能力比成功学习者略胜一筹;两者的音乐、身体运动、形象思维能力相似。
(5)在学习策略方面,非成功英语学习者的学习策略运用能力较为薄弱,但是经过学习策略培训,他们的读写策略和对语言的敏感性得到提高。
(6)内容教学-合作学习法能够产生以下教学效果:①将教学重心移向学生,使学生拥有充分的交互学习机会,促进语言的可理解性输入和有意义产出;②确保单元教学目标多元化,促进内容(或文化)目标与语言目标融合,为单元学习提供语境、主题与合作学习活动,加强学生运用英语的真实体验;③形成性评估方法得到学生的肯定。
(7)实施内容教学-合作学习法的教师以及接受该教学法试验的成功英语学习者对该方法的教学效果感到满意。非成功英语学习者对合作学习方法感到满意,因此,内容教学-合作学习法对这些学生同样具有适用性。研究表明,论文的研究成果对大学英语优秀学习者培养具有成效性,可以在温州大学各年级的大学英语教学中使用,对其他同类高校的大学英语教学具有借鉴价值。但是,论文也存在着局限性,主要表现在以下几个方面:
(1)虽然作者已经尽最大的努力开展论文选题的研究,但是该研究还没有达到很高的标准。比如,内容教学-合作学习法只在2008级英语成功学习者中间进行尝试并取得成效,未能够在智力方面不存在很大差异的非成功英语学习者当中做实证研究。这一点不足将在2011级学生中进行弥补。
(2)由于作者知识有限,有关大学英语等级词汇、专业相关的通用英语词汇、英语习语、英语词组、文化词语、学习策略运用技巧等方面的语料数据库开发还未有探讨。该语料数据库将可以为该研究提出的“路向”的应用提供很大方便,希望以后对这方面感兴趣的学者继续研究。
(3)目前的改革背景还不能达到很好使用“路向”的高度。虽然该研究系2009年浙江省新世纪高等教育教学改革一类项目(项目编号:yb09053)的部分研究成果,但还没有立项为国家级课题,其成果应用受到一定的限制。对此,作者将努力寻求最新的理论支持,争取国家级课题立项。此外,“路向”对现有的教学内容、教学方法和学业评价体系提出了改革的要求,对教师提出再次开发教材的要求。这些要求需要教师转变观念,并在教学中投入大量的时间和精力。可喜的是,大学英语教师积极投入大学英语课程改革,具有在各自的教学风格中尝试应用“路向”的热情。随着他们学习掌握了本研究相关的外语教学理论,该“路向”必将在大学英语教学中得到推广与应用。
College English (CE) is a program set up by the Ministry of Education of China and learned by full-time non-English majors in four-year programs at the university level. The curriculum guide issued in 2007 for CE, termed College English Curriculum Requirements (CECR),states the following aim that CE is to pursue: to cultivate students’overall abilities of language application with focus on listening and speaking so that students will be able to communicate effectively in their future studies and careers as well as socializations, and at the same time enhance their ability of autonomous learning and general cultural awareness so as to meet the needs of China’s social development and international exchanges.
CECR involves three specific groupings broken down as (1) basic requirements, (2) intermediate requirements and (3) higher requirements. These are used as benchmarks to follow in teaching vocabulary, grammar and language skills to students of different language levels. In addition, CECR mandates a relationship between teaching and testing. CET 4 & 6 is adopted to evaluate whether or not students have reached the expectations of CECR upon the completion of their curriculum study.
Obviously, CECR works as the language syllabus to guide teaching of the CE program. Textbooks accepted as excellent materials for CE teaching and learning, have been compiled around CECR. For example, the textbook College English- Integrated Course regards the training of basic language skills of listening, speaking, reading, writing and translating as well as the training of students’comprehensive communicative competence as the aim and the guideline of textbook compilation ( Li (李荫华) 2005:V). Consequently, the textbook consists of such contents as texts, vocabulary, exercises in language study and use, skills practice, etc.
Due to the unidimensional language syllabus and textbook compilation around the syllabus, problems are found in existence in CE teaching and learning. For example, the teacher considers one textbook as the teaching content of one term, so the common teaching practice is teaching from the book through one unit after another in order. There are not many teachers who are aware of unit curriculum reorganization for their own classroom use according to students’language levels and competence. Consequently, students remain weak in applying English in different situations mainly because of their inability to expand on their vocabulary, lack of grammatical awareness, the interference of their mother language and weaknesses in their application of learning strategies. These are the main factors affecting successful English learning of the students especially from the average local universities such as Wenzhou University (WZU).
Professors Dai and Shu ((戴炜栋、束定芳)1994:1) point out that foreign language acquisition gets affected by the learner individual factors including age, intelligence, language aptitude, cognitive styles, personality, motivation and attitudes; by the factors of learning process including prior knowledge and learners strategies; and by environmental factors including social environment factors such as language policies, policies of foreign language teaching as well as social attitudes and educational factors involving syllabus composition, curriculum design, time for study, learning materials, teachers, methodology, testing, and so on.
Ellis (1997), Cook (2006) together with other researchers conclude the characteristics of GLLs in their own perspectives, which, as a whole, are closely related to learning strategies, indicating that GLLs are able to well apply learning strategies in language study and use. Stern (1983,1992) in his multidimensional curriculum approach stresses strategy learning and use which is also paid special attention to in Langacker’s (1999:99) usage-based model in cognitive grammar. Based on the related theories reviewed, the present study takes WZU as a case study to investigate ways to cultivate students’abilities of language learning and use by referring to the benchmarks set in CECR as well as the characteristics of GLLs. Thus, the Integrated Approach to the development of GLLs is proposed.
Integrated is meant in the Integrated Approach as follows:
(1) the integration of the four syllabuses into one unit teaching including the language syllabus, the communication syllabus, the content/culture syllabus, and the learning strategies syllabus, showing the enrichment of the teaching content, and transformation of the traditional uni-language syllabus teaching model. (2) the integration of a theme with its related subject, indicating in CE teaching the application of the approach of bottom-up schema in cognitive grammar to enhance students’abilities of analysis and imagination from the concrete to the abstract.
(3) the integration of classroom teaching and autonomous learning after class, providing students with opportunities and environments to learn and use English.
(4) the integration of teaching and evaluation, leading teaching and learning efficiency to be promoted. Approach is meant in the Integrated Approach as the following route of CE teaching and research: firstly, investigation of students’perceptions of EFL learning, teaching and evaluation; followed by analysis of learner individual differences in cognitive styles, language aptitude, intelligence, and learning strategies, etc.; then, ability cultivation of less successful students’learning strategy use, and lastly, effect exploration of the content-based-through-cooperative-learning method on the development of GLLs. The present study explores the Integrated Approach in the theoretic perspectives of L2 acquisition, cognitive grammar and EFL education with the quantitative research method and the qualitative research method. Through questionnaire survey, tests and interviews to investigate CE teaching and learning among the students of year 2003 and year 2008, the following findings are brought forth:
(1) Prior knowledge contributes to comprehension of meanings. Students can apply prior knowledge in learning or answering questions in the classroom. Teaching related to students’prior knowledge can achieve positive outcomes; the more interactive the English classroom is, the higher motivation the students have in coming to the classes. Compared between female and male students, female students have higher motivation in English learning, are more patient with the learning process, more social in communicative activities, and better in linguistic analysis; male students are more inclined to interactive learning, more interested in classroom evaluation, and have higher expectations of integrating technology into English assessment. As far as learning assessment is concerned, both males and females regard formative assessment as having better outcomes than summative assessment.
(2) The students who speak English both inside and outside the classroom can achieve overall development of listening, speaking, reading, writing, etc.
(3) In language aptitude, abilities of analysis and rote memory have great impacts on grammatical output. In cognitive styles students comprehend meanings by field-independence or field-dependence which tends to interact with each other without the support of a context.
(4) In intelligence preferences, the order for the seven types of intelligence arranged from high to low is interpersonal, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, linguistic, logical-mathematical, intrapersonal and visual-spatial intelligence. Interpersonal intelligence is on the top of the preference list, while spatial intelligence is on the bottom. The SSs are more inclined to interpersonal, linguistic and intrapersonal intelligence than the LSSs, while the LSSs are relatively stronger in logical-mathematical intelligence. There is no difference in musical, bodily-kinesthetic and spatial intelligence between them.
(5) The LSSs are weak in application of learning strategies, but after receiving strategy training, they perform better than before in applying strategies in learning and become more sensitive to the English language.
(6) The content-based-teaching-through-cooperative-learning method can bring forth the following teaching outcomes: The focus of teaching is shifted to the students who are able to have ample opportunities for interactive learning through which they can comprehensively input knowledge and meaningfully output language. The teaching objectives of a unit become multidimensional with the content/ culture objectives being integrated into the language objectives, which provides students with contexts, themes and cooperative learning activities so that they experience language use in an authentic way. The formative assessment method is accepted by the students.
(7) Both the SSs and the instructors of the EE as well as EE courses are satisfied with the content-based-teaching-through-cooperative-learning method. The LSSs are satisfied with cooperative learning. Thus, the teaching method accepted by the SSs can equally be appropriate to the LSSs.
Obviously, the Integrated Approach has been proved effective to the development of GLLs. However, limitations exist such as:
(1) Though the author conducted the research in her best endeavors, the present study is not of high research standards. For example, the content-based-teaching- through-cooperative-learning method was not experimented with the LSSs of year 2008 even though it achieved positive teaching outcomes from among the SSs who did not have many big differences from their less successful peers in intelligence. It is expected that this limitation will be eliminated with application of the Integrated Approach among the students of year 2011.
(2) With little expertise the author has not yet established a CE database for collection of formalized routines, chunks of knowledge, words with cultural connotations, discipline-related terms and expressions, learning strategies, etc. With this database, application of the Integrated Approach will be facilitated to a great extent. Such a database is hoped to develop by those who are interested in it.
(3) The innovation background for the Integrated Approach is not completely ready at present. While the present study is part of the research results of the provincial program - the 2009 Zhejiang New Century Teaching Reform Program (No.yb09053), it has not yet been approved to establish as a research program of national level. Consequently, its promotion and further application in CE teaching has been affected. Nevertheless, the author will seek more theoretical support by integrating related and also the latest theories both at home and abroad into the present study. In this way, the Integrated Approach will be refined for the better, and the research program of the desired level can be approved to set up.
Moreover, the Integrated Approach requires transforming teaching content, methodology, and the system of learning assessment in existence. It requires teachers to change their conventional conception regarding a curriculum, and to redesign the unit curriculum around a theme together with various related resources. Such requirements will take teachers a lot of time and energy.
Fortunately, CE teachers at WZU have shown great involvement in curriculum transformation and enthusiasm for applying the Integrated Approach in their teaching styles. With teachers’mastery of the knowledge related to theories of Stern’s multidimensional curriculum approach, Langacker’s usage-based model of cognitive grammar as well as other foreign language teaching theories, the Integrated Approach will be well promoted and accepted by WZU and other local universities as well.
引文
3 Normal stands for the Normal Class, and Extensive for the Extensive Class in Tables 1-31.
[1] Adjemian. On the nature of interlanguage systems [J]. Language Learning, 1976, (26).
[2] Albir, A. Competence-based curriculum design for training translators [J]. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 2007, 1 (2):163-195.
[3] Allen, J. P. B. A three-level curriculum model for second language education [J]. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 1983, 40 (1). 23-44.
[4] Ammar, A. & Spada, N. One size fits all? Recasts, prompts and L2 learning [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2006, (28):543-574.
[5] Archard, M. & S. Niemeier. Cognitive Linguistics,Second Language Acquisition,and Foreign Language Teaching [M]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2004.
[6] Armstrong, T. Multiple intelligences in the classroom [M]. Alexandria. VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1993.
[7] Baker, C. Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism [M]. Tronto: Multilingual Matters Ltd., 2001.
[8] Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Griffin, R. L2 pragmatic awareness: Evidence from the ESL classroom [J]. System, 2005, (33):401-415.
[9] Barnes, D. Practical Curriculum Study [M]. London: Rontledge & Kegan Paul, 1983.
[10] Boas, H. C. A Constructional Approach to Resultatives [M]. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 2003.
[11] Bodley, J.H. [EB/OL]. Definitions and Discussions of Culture. http://www.wsu.edu:8001/vcwsu/commons/topics/culture/culture-definitions, 1994.
[12] Brown, D. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching [M].北京:外语教学与研出版社, 2001.
[13] Bybee, J. Usage-based grammar and second language acquisition [C]. Robinson & N. Ellis: 2008.
[14] Carroll, J and S. Sapon. Modern Language Aptitude Test: Form A [Z]. Bethesda, Maryland: Second Language Testing Inc., 1999.
[15] Carroll, J. and S. Sapon. Modern Language Aptitude Test Manual [Z]. Bethesda, Maryland: Second Language Testing Inc., 2002.
[16] Carter, E. The relationship of field dependent /independent cognitive style to Spanish language and proficiency: A preliminary report [J]. Modern Language Journal, 1988, (72):21-30.
[17] Chamot, A., and O’Malley, J. The CALLA Handbook: Reading [M], MA: Addison- Wesley, 1994.
[18] Cheng, L. Washback, impact and consequences [A]. Encyclopedia of Language and Education [C]. 2008, Springer: 349-364.
[19] Cheng, L. Changing Language Teaching through Language Testing: A Washback Study [M].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
[20] Cohen, A.D. Studying language learner strategies: How do we get the information? [A] in A. L. Wenden & J. Rubin (eds.). Learner Strategies in Language Learning [C]. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall International, 1984.31-40.
[21] Cohen, A.D. Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language [M]. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2000.
[22] Cook, V. Second Language Learning and Language Teaching [M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社, 2006.
[23] Cummings, J. Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimal age question and some other matters [J]. Working papers on Bilingualism, 1979, (19):197-205.
[24] D’Anglejan, A., Harley, B. and Shapson, S. M. Student evaluation in a multidimensional core French curriculum [J]. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 1990, 47 (1):106-124.
[25] Dornyei, Z. The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition [M]. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2005.
[26] Duplantie, M. and Trembley, R. Le syllabus communicative/experiential: essai de synthes [J]. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 1990, 47 (1): 43-53.
[27] Ehrman, M. E., and R. L. Oxford. Cognition plus: Correlates of language learning success [J]. Modern Language Journal, 1995, (79):67–89.
[28] Eisner, W. The Educational Imagination on the Design and Evaluation of School Programs [M]. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall, 2002.
[29] Ellis, R. Classroom learning styles and effect on second language acquisition: A study of two learners [J]. System, 1989, (7):249-262.
[30] Ellis, R. Understanding Second Language Acquisition [M].上海外语教育出版社, 1985/1994/1999.
[31] Ellis, R. Second Language Acquisition [M].上海外语教育出版社, 2005.
[32] Ellis, R. The study of second language acquisition [M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 1997.
[33] Ellis, R & Sheen Y. Re-examining the role of recasts in second language acquisition [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2006, (28):557-600.
[34] Erlam, R. Language aptitude and its relationship to instructional effectiveness in second language acquisition [J]. Language Teaching Research, 2005, (9):147-171.
[35] Evans, V. & Green M. Cognitive Linguistics:An Introduction [M]. Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press, 2006.
[36] Fillmore, C.J. and B.T.Atkins. Toward a Frame-based lexicon: The semantics of risk and its neighbors [A]. In A. Lehrer and E. Kittay, Frames, Fields and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization [C]. Hillsdale: Erlbaum, 1992. 75-102.
[37] Flinders University, time undated. [EB/OL]. Evaluation Is about Gathering Evidence about the Impact of Teaching. http://www.flinders.edu.au/teach/evaluate/home.html.
[38] Flynn, James R. What Is Intelligence: Beyond the Flynn Effect [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
[39] Fromkin, V. & Bochnan, B. An Introduction to Language [M]. Texas Harcourt BraceCollege publisher, 1998. 28.
[40] Gagne, E. The Cognitive Psychology of School Learning [M]. Boston: Little, Brown, 1985.
[41] Gass, S. M. An investigation of syntactic transfer in second language learners [A]. In R. Scarcella and S. Krashen (eds.). Research In Second Language Acquisition: Selected Papers from the Los Angeles Second Language Acquisition Research Forum [C]. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1980. 180.
[42] Gardner, H. Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in Practice [M]. New York: Basic Books, 1993.
[43] Gardner, R. Social Psychology and Second Language Learning: The Role of Attitudes and Motivation [M]. London: Edward Arnold Ltd., 1985.
[44] Garrett, P., Griffiths, Y., James, C. and Scholfield, P. Use of the mother-tongue in second language classrooms: an experimental investigation of effects on the attitudes and writing performance of bilingual UK schoolchildren [J]. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 1994, 15 (5): 371-382.
[45] Gillette, B. Two successful language learners: An introspective approach [A]. In C. Farch(ed.). Introspection in Second Language Research, Avon: Multilingual Matters Ltd., 1987.
[46] Goldberg, A.E. Constructions: a constructional grammar Approach to argument structure [M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995.
[47] Goldbeg, R. A Changing campus culture [J]. The Journal of the Centre for Teaching and Learning Experience, 2001, 2(2).
[48] Halliday, M.A.K. and R.Hasan. Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social- Semiotic Perspective s [M]. Victoria: Deakin University Press, 1989.
[49] Hansen, J and C. Stansfield. The relationship of field dependent-independent cognitive styles to foreign language achievement [J]. Language Learning, 1981, (31):349-366.
[50] Hatoss, A. A model for evaluating language textbooks as mediators of culture [J]. Babel, 2004, 39(2):25-38.
[51] Hebert, Y. The general language education syllabus in summary [J]. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 1990, 47 (1):66-81.
[52] Herrell, A. L. Fifty strategies for teaching English language learners [M]. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall, 2000.
[53] Hudson, R. Word grammar,cognitive linguistics,and second language learning and teaching [C]. Robinson & N. Ellis: 2008.
[54] Hu, G. W. Contextual influences on instructional practices: A Chinese case for an ecological approach to ELT [J]. TESOL Quarterly, 2005, 39 (4):635-660.
[55] Huitt, W. [EB/OL]. A Transactional Model of the Teaching/Learning Process. http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/materials/mdltlp.html), 2003.
[56] Hulstijn, J. H. Theoretical and Empirical Issues in the Study of Implicit and Explicit Second-language Learning [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,2004, (27).
[57] Hymes, D.H. Foundation in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach [M]. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press, 1974.
[58] Izumi, S. Processing difficulty in comprehension and production of relative clauses by 190learners of English as a second language [J]. Language Learning, 2003, (53):285-323.
[59] Ji, Peiying. Pragmatics and Pedagogy in College English Teaching [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2008.
[60] Jin, Y. & Yang, H. The English proficiency of college and university students in China: As reflected in the CET [J]. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 2006, 19(1):21-36. [[61] Johnson, J. S. Prior and M. Autuso. Field dependence as a factor in second language communicative production [J]. Language Learning, 2000, (50):529-567.
[62] Johnson, D.W., and Johnson, R.T. Circles of learning: Cooperation in the classroom [M]. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1984.
[63] Johnson. An Introduction to Foreign Language Learning and Teaching [M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社, 2001.
[64] Kinginger, C. Defining the zone of proximal development in US foreign language education [J]. Applied Linguistics, 2002, 23 (2):240-260.
[65] Koike, D. A. & Pearson, L. The effect of instruction and feedback in the development of pragmatic competence [J]. System, 2005, (33): 481-501.
[66] Kramsch, C. Context and Culture in Language Teaching [M].上海外语教育出版社, 1994.
[67] Langacker, R.W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar [M]. Strandford: Strandford University Press, 1987/1999.
[68] Langacker, R.W. Grammar and Conceptualization [M]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1999.
[69] Langacker, R.W. Constructions in cognitive grammar [J]. English Linguistics, 2003, (20): 41-83.
[70] LeBlanc, C. & Courtel, C. Executive summary: the culture syllabus. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 1990, 47 (1), 82-92.
[71] LeBlanc, R. National Core French Study: A Synthesis [M]. Ottawa: Canadian Association of Second language Teachers, 1990.
[72] Lindholm-Learn, K. J. Dual Language Education [M]. Toronto: Multilingual Matters Ltd., 2001.
[73] Liu J. Measuring Interlanguage Pragmatic Knowledge of Chinese EFL Learners [M]. Frankfurtam Main: Peter Lang, 2006.
[74] Lyster, R. The role of analytic language teaching in French immersion programs [J]. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 1990, 47 (1):159-176.
[75] Lyster, R. Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms [J]. Language Learning, 1998, 48(2): 183-218.
[76] Lyster, R. Learning and Teaching Languages through Content: A Counterbalanced Approach [M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2007.
[77] Lyster, R & Mori R. Interaction feedback and instructional counterbalance [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2006, (28):269-300.
[78] Mackey, A. From introspections, brain scans, and memory tests to the role of social context: Advancing research on interaction and learning [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2006, (28): 369-379.
[79] Massey, M. Directions in ESL curriculum [J]. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 1985, 42 (2):263-270.
[80] McDonough, K. Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners’response on ESL question development [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2005, (27):79-103.
[81] McIlrath, D. and Huitt, W. The Teaching-Learning Process: A Discussion of Models [M]. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University, 1995.
[82] Milner, J. O. and Milner, L. F. M. Bridging English [M]. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall, 2003.
[83] Miri, B, Ben-Chaim D & Zoller, U. Purposely teaching for the promotion of higher-order thinking skills: A case of critical thinking [J]. Research in Science Education, 2007, (4):353-369.
[84] Mitchell, R. & Florence, M. Second Language Learning Theories (2nd edition) [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
[85] Naimen, N., Frohlich, M., Stern, H. & Todesco. A. The Good Language Learner [Z]. Toronto: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 1978.
[86] Naiman, N. The Good Language Learner [M]. Toronto: Modern Language Center, 1996.
[87] Nassaji, H. Effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explicitness [J]. Language Learning, 2009, (2):411-452.
[88] O'Malley, J. M. and Chamot, A. V. Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition [M]. London: Macmillan, 1990.
[89] Omabgio, A. Teaching Language in Context [M]. Heinle & Heinle Puhliehei, Inc., 1986.
[90] New Brunswick Department of Education. Atlantic Canada English Language Arts Curriculum, High School [Z]. Fredericton: Education Curriculum Department Branch, 1998.
[91] Osborne, K. Education: A Guide to the Canadian School Debate– Or, Who Wants What and Why [M]. Toronto: The Penguin Group, 1999.
[92] Oxford, R.. Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know [M]. New York: Newbury House, 1990a.
[93] Oxford, R.L. Language learning strategies [A]. In R. Carter and D. Nunan (Eds.). The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages [C]. UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001.166-172.
[94] Poyen, J. The national core French study: a national curriculum project [J].The Canadian Modern Language Review, 1990, 47 (1):20-31.
[95] Price, L. Individual Differences in Learning:Cognitive control,cognitive style,and learning style [J]. Educational Psychology, 2004, (5): 681-698.
[96] Ranta, L. The role of learner’s language analytic ability in the communicative classroom [A]. In P. Robinson (ed.). Individual Differences and Instructed Language Learning [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2001.
[97] Rehorick, S. and Rehorick, D. Merging language and content through multidimensional curriculum design [J]. Comparative Culture, 1997, (3):24-28.
[98] Reid, J. M. Learning styles in the ESL/EFL Classroom [M]. Beijing: Foreign LanguageTeaching and Research Press, 2002.
[99] Richards, J. Communicative Language Teaching Today [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
[100] Robinson, P. Aptitude and second language acquisition [J]. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 2005, (25): 46-73.
[101] Rubin, J. What the‘Good Language Learner’can teach us [J]. TESOL Quarterly, 1975, 9(1): 41-51.
[102] Rubin, J. Learner strategies: Theoretical assumptions, research history and typology [A]. In A. Wenden and J. Rubin (Eds.). Learner Strategies and Language Learning[C]. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall,1987.15-29.
[103] Saade, R. G. & Kira, D. Computer anxiety in E-learning: The effect of computer self-efficacy [J]. Journal of Information Technology Education, 2009, (8):178-190.
[104] Selinker, L. Interlanguage [J]. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 1972, (10): 209.
[105] Sharma, R. D. and Xiaoshen, Z. Learning and teaching in Chinese Higher Education: student perceptions in English as foreign language program [A]. In the Refereed Proceedings of the 2005 SEAAIR Conference [C]. Bali, Indonesia, ISBN 979-25-0220-3, 2005.
[106] Shaw, P. A. With one stone: models of instruction and their curricular implications in an advanced content-based foreign language program [A]. InS. B. Stryker and B. M. Leaver(ed.). Content-based Instruction in Foreign Language Education: Models and Meth ods [C].Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press, 1997.261-282.
[107] Skehan, P. Individual differences in second language learning [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1991, (13): 275-298.
[108] Sparks, R. L. et al. Differences in native-language skills, foreign-language aptitude and foreign-language grades among high-, average- and low-proficiency foreign-language learners: Two studies [J]. Language Testing, 1998, 15(2):181–216.
[109] Stern, H. H. What can we learn from the good language learner? [J]. Canadian Modern Language Review, 1975. 31.
[110] Stern, H. H. French core programs across Canada: How can we improve them? [J]. The Ontario Modern Language Teachers’Association, 1982, 39 (1):34-47.
[111] Stern, H. H. Fundamental concepts of language teaching [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983.
[112] Stern, H. H. Issues and options in language teaching [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.
[113] Stoller, F. Content-Based Instruction:A Shell for Language Teaching or a Framework for Strategic Language and Content Learning? [M]. TESOL: P1enary Address, 2002.
[114] Tasmanian Government. Time undated. [EB/OL]. English: Key Learning Processes, Online documents. http://www.education.tas.gov.au/english/key.htm.
[115] Taylor, L. Developing assessment literacy [J]. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 2009, (29): 21-36.
[116] Tremblay, R. and LeBlanc, R. Developing teaching materials for a multidimensionalcurriculum [J]. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 1990, 47 (1):132-156.
[117] Vanpatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.). Theories in Second Language Acquisition:An introduction [C].New York:Lawrence Erlbaum, 2007.
[118] W. Croft & D. A. Cruse. Cognitive Linguistics [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
[119] Werner, H. Foreign language teaching- a modern building on historical foundations [J]. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2006, (16): 2-15.
[120] Zheng, Y. & Cheng, L. College English Test (CET) in China [J]. Language Testing, 2008, 25(3): 408-417.
[121]蔡基刚.大学英语教学:回顾、反思和研究[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2006.
[122]陈坚林.大学英语教材的现状与改革——第五代教材研发构想[J].外语教学与研究,2007,(5):374-378.
[123]陈琦、刘儒德.当代教育心理学[M].北京:北京师范大学出版社,2007.
[124]戴炜栋.构建具有中国特色的英语教学“一条龙”体系[J].外语教学与研究,2001,(5): 322-327.
[125]戴炜栋.立足国情,科学规划,推动我国外语教育的可持续发展[J].外语界,2009a, (5):2-9.
[126]戴炜栋.中国高校外语教育30年[J].外语界,2009b,(1):2-4.
[127]戴炜栋、蔡龙权.中介语的认知发生基础[J].外语与外语教学,2001,(3):1-5.
[128]戴炜栋、牛强.过渡语的石化现象及其教学启示[J].外语教学,1999,(2):13-14.
[129]戴炜栋、束定芳.试论影响外语习得的若干重要因素[J].外国语,1994,(4):1-10.
[130]戴炜栋.温州大学罗山讲堂报告:改革开放三十年和外语教学.[R]. http://wyxy.wzu.edu.cn/xygk/shownews.aspx?ID=1885。温州:温州大学育英图书馆学术报告厅。2008.12.17.
[131]戴炜栋、杨仙菊.第二语言语用习得的课堂教学模式[J].外语界,2005,(1):2-8.
[132]戴运财、胡慧玲、章晓雯.从学习者英语关系从句的习得看关系从句习得的理论假设[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2008,(5):71-77.
[133]戴运财、尤陈静、陈旭英.英语关系从句的教学——标记投射模式与可教性假设探究[J],杭州师范大学学报(人文社科版),2008,(6):115-118.
[134]常俊跃、刘莉.“内容依托”教学模式给大学双语教学的借鉴[J].江苏高教,2009,(1): 81-83.
[135]程晓堂、康艳.关于高校英语教学若干问题的思考[A],载庄智象,中国外语教育发展战略论坛[C].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2009,277-287.
[136]冯涟漪、龚昭.元认知与英语口语学习的相关研究[J].外语界,2007,(2):58-64.
[137]冯敏、邹囡囡.合作学习法——《英语国家概况》教学的有效方法[J].教育理论与实践, 2006,(7):60-62.
[138]傅政.二语学习成功者策略研究初探[J].外语教学,2001,(2):23-26.
[139]高航.认知语法的语用视角:基于用法的动态模式述评[J].外语学刊,2009,(5): 53-56.
[140]桂诗春.我国英语专业学生英语词汇量的调查和分析[J].现代外语,1985,(1): 1-6.
[141]韩梅、林立.对一位英语学习成功者的调研及分析[J].中小学外语教学,1999,(10).
[142]胡壮麟、朱永生、张德禄、李战子.系统功能语言学概论[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2008.
[143]教育部高等教育司.大学英语课程教学要求[S].上海:上海外语教育出版社。2007.
[144]李荫华等.全新版大学英语综合教程[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2004.
[145]刘列斌. EFL中为学习者而纠错[J].湖北广播电视大学学报,2006,(2):40-42.
[146]鲁凌.优秀生英语学习成功之道[J].广西商业高等专科学校学报,2002,(4).
[147]皮连生.《智育心理学》[M].人民教育出版社,1996.
[148]沈彩芬、程东元多.元智能理论与外语教学[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2004,(4):39-43.
[149]施渝.国外二语听力元认知研究综述[J].外语界,2009,(1):57-63.
[150]束定芳.论隐喻产生的认知、心理和语言原因[J].外语学刊,2000,(2):72.
[151]束定芳.外语课堂教学新模式刍议[J].外语界,2006,(4):21-29.
[152]束定芳.外语教学改革:问题与对策[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2004.
[153]束定芳,陈素燕.宁波诺丁汉大学英语教学的成功经验对我国大学英语教学改革的启发[J].外语界,2009,(6):23-29.
[154]束定芳、庄智象.现代外语教学理论、实践与方法(修订版) [M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2008.
[155]文秋芳.英语学习策略论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1995.
[156]文秋芳.外语教学与研究英语学习成功者与不成功者方法上的差异[J].外语教学与研究,1995,(3):61-66.
[157]阳其荣.错误分析与外语教学中的纠错问题[J].广西师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2002,(1):228-233.
[158]杨盈、庄恩平.构建外语教学跨文化交际能力框架[J].外语界,2007,(4):13-21.
[159]张立.元认知意识培训——学习者自主学习能力提高的重要前提[J].外语界,2009,(4):56-60.
[160]赵萱.二语习得中的中介语及其石化现象分析[J].沈阳师范大学学报,2006,(3):140.
[161]庄智象、束定芳.外语学习者策略研究与外语教学[J].现代外语,1994,(3):28-32.
[162]庄智象.中国外语教育发展战略论坛[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2009.
[163]朱晓申.基于WebCT的大学英语听力课主题教学研究[J].外语电化教学,2006,(5):65-68.
[164]朱晓申、邓天中等.交互性外语教学:理论与实践[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2007.
[165]朱晓申.大学英语教学中语法运用影响因素及对策研究——以关系从句为例[J].外语电化教学,2010,(3):71-75.
[166]朱晓申.大学英语语境化教学研究[J].外语界,2010,(4):50-56.
[1] Adjemian. On the nature of interlanguage systems [J]. Language Learning, 1976, (26).
[2] Albir, A. Competence-based curriculum design for training translators [J]. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 2007, 1 (2):163-195.
[3] Allen, J. P. B. A three-level curriculum model for second language education [J]. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 1983, 40 (1). 23-44.
[4] Ammar, A. & Spada, N. One size fits all? Recasts, prompts and L2 learning [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2006, (28):543-574.
[5] Archard, M. & S. Niemeier. Cognitive Linguistics,Second Language Acquisition,and Foreign Language Teaching [M]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2004.
[6] Armstrong, T. Multiple intelligences in the classroom [M]. Alexandria. VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1993.
[7] Baker, C. Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism [M]. Tronto: Multilingual Matters Ltd., 2001.
[8] Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Griffin, R. L2 pragmatic awareness: Evidence from the ESL classroom [J]. System, 2005, (33):401-415.
[9] Barnes, D. Practical Curriculum Study [M]. London: Rontledge & Kegan Paul, 1983.
[10] Boas, H. C. A Constructional Approach to Resultatives [M]. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 2003.
[11] Bodley, J.H. [EB/OL]. Definitions and Discussions of Culture. http://www.wsu.edu:8001/vcwsu/commons/topics/culture/culture-definitions, 1994.
[12] Brown, D. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching [M].北京:外语教学与研出版社, 2001.
[13] Bybee, J. Usage-based grammar and second language acquisition [C]. Robinson & N. Ellis: 2008.
[14] Carroll, J and S. Sapon. Modern Language Aptitude Test: Form A [Z]. Bethesda, Maryland: Second Language Testing Inc., 1999.
[15] Carroll, J. and S. Sapon. Modern Language Aptitude Test Manual [Z]. Bethesda, Maryland: Second Language Testing Inc., 2002.
[16] Carter, E. The relationship of field dependent /independent cognitive style to Spanish language and proficiency: A preliminary report [J]. Modern Language Journal, 1988, (72):21-30.
[17] Chamot, A., and O’Malley, J. The CALLA Handbook: Reading [M], MA: Addison- Wesley, 1994.
[18] Cheng, L. Washback, impact and consequences [A]. Encyclopedia of Language and Education [C]. 2008, Springer: 349-364.
[19] Cheng, L. Changing Language Teaching through Language Testing: A Washback Study [M].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
[20] Cohen, A.D. Studying language learner strategies: How do we get the information? [A] in A. L. Wenden & J. Rubin (eds.). Learner Strategies in Language Learning [C]. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall International, 1984.31-40.
[21] Cohen, A.D. Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language [M]. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2000.
[22] Cook, V. Second Language Learning and Language Teaching [M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社, 2006.
[23] Cummings, J. Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimal age question and some other matters [J]. Working papers on Bilingualism, 1979, (19):197-205.
[24] D’Anglejan, A., Harley, B. and Shapson, S. M. Student evaluation in a multidimensional core French curriculum [J]. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 1990, 47 (1):106-124.
[25] Dornyei, Z. The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition [M]. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2005.
[26] Duplantie, M. and Trembley, R. Le syllabus communicative/experiential: essai de synthes [J]. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 1990, 47 (1): 43-53.
[27] Ehrman, M. E., and R. L. Oxford. Cognition plus: Correlates of language learning success [J]. Modern Language Journal, 1995, (79):67–89.
[28] Eisner, W. The Educational Imagination on the Design and Evaluation of School Programs [M]. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall, 2002.
[29] Ellis, R. Classroom learning styles and effect on second language acquisition: A study of two learners [J]. System, 1989, (7):249-262.
[30] Ellis, R. Understanding Second Language Acquisition [M].上海外语教育出版社, 1985/1994/1999.
[31] Ellis, R. Second Language Acquisition [M].上海外语教育出版社, 2005.
[32] Ellis, R. The study of second language acquisition [M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 1997.
[33] Ellis, R & Sheen Y. Re-examining the role of recasts in second language acquisition [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2006, (28):557-600.
[34] Erlam, R. Language aptitude and its relationship to instructional effectiveness in second language acquisition [J]. Language Teaching Research, 2005, (9):147-171.
[35] Evans, V. & Green M. Cognitive Linguistics:An Introduction [M]. Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press, 2006.
[36] Fillmore, C.J. and B.T.Atkins. Toward a Frame-based lexicon: The semantics of risk and its neighbors [A]. In A. Lehrer and E. Kittay, Frames, Fields and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization [C]. Hillsdale: Erlbaum, 1992. 75-102.
[37] Flinders University, time undated. [EB/OL]. Evaluation Is about Gathering Evidence about the Impact of Teaching. http://www.flinders.edu.au/teach/evaluate/home.html.
[38] Flynn, James R. What Is Intelligence: Beyond the Flynn Effect [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
[39] Fromkin, V. & Bochnan, B. An Introduction to Language [M]. Texas Harcourt BraceCollege publisher, 1998. 28.
[40] Gagne, E. The Cognitive Psychology of School Learning [M]. Boston: Little, Brown, 1985.
[41] Gass, S. M. An investigation of syntactic transfer in second language learners [A]. In R. Scarcella and S. Krashen (eds.). Research In Second Language Acquisition: Selected Papers from the Los Angeles Second Language Acquisition Research Forum [C]. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1980. 180.
[42] Gardner, H. Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in Practice [M]. New York: Basic Books, 1993.
[43] Gardner, R. Social Psychology and Second Language Learning: The Role of Attitudes and Motivation [M]. London: Edward Arnold Ltd., 1985.
[44] Garrett, P., Griffiths, Y., James, C. and Scholfield, P. Use of the mother-tongue in second language classrooms: an experimental investigation of effects on the attitudes and writing performance of bilingual UK schoolchildren [J]. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 1994, 15 (5): 371-382.
[45] Gillette, B. Two successful language learners: An introspective approach [A]. In C. Farch(ed.). Introspection in Second Language Research, Avon: Multilingual Matters Ltd., 1987.
[46] Goldberg, A.E. Constructions: a constructional grammar Approach to argument structure [M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995.
[47] Goldbeg, R. A Changing campus culture [J]. The Journal of the Centre for Teaching and Learning Experience, 2001, 2(2).
[48] Halliday, M.A.K. and R.Hasan. Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social- Semiotic Perspective s [M]. Victoria: Deakin University Press, 1989.
[49] Hansen, J and C. Stansfield. The relationship of field dependent-independent cognitive styles to foreign language achievement [J]. Language Learning, 1981, (31):349-366.
[50] Hatoss, A. A model for evaluating language textbooks as mediators of culture [J]. Babel, 2004, 39(2):25-38.
[51] Hebert, Y. The general language education syllabus in summary [J]. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 1990, 47 (1):66-81.
[52] Herrell, A. L. Fifty strategies for teaching English language learners [M]. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall, 2000.
[53] Hudson, R. Word grammar,cognitive linguistics,and second language learning and teaching [C]. Robinson & N. Ellis: 2008.
[54] Hu, G. W. Contextual influences on instructional practices: A Chinese case for an ecological approach to ELT [J]. TESOL Quarterly, 2005, 39 (4):635-660.
[55] Huitt, W. [EB/OL]. A Transactional Model of the Teaching/Learning Process. http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/materials/mdltlp.html), 2003.
[56] Hulstijn, J. H. Theoretical and Empirical Issues in the Study of Implicit and Explicit Second-language Learning [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,2004, (27).
[57] Hymes, D.H. Foundation in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach [M]. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press, 1974.
[58] Izumi, S. Processing difficulty in comprehension and production of relative clauses by 190learners of English as a second language [J]. Language Learning, 2003, (53):285-323.
[59] Ji, Peiying. Pragmatics and Pedagogy in College English Teaching [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2008.
[60] Jin, Y. & Yang, H. The English proficiency of college and university students in China: As reflected in the CET [J]. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 2006, 19(1):21-36. [[61] Johnson, J. S. Prior and M. Autuso. Field dependence as a factor in second language communicative production [J]. Language Learning, 2000, (50):529-567.
[62] Johnson, D.W., and Johnson, R.T. Circles of learning: Cooperation in the classroom [M]. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1984.
[63] Johnson. An Introduction to Foreign Language Learning and Teaching [M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社, 2001.
[64] Kinginger, C. Defining the zone of proximal development in US foreign language education [J]. Applied Linguistics, 2002, 23 (2):240-260.
[65] Koike, D. A. & Pearson, L. The effect of instruction and feedback in the development of pragmatic competence [J]. System, 2005, (33): 481-501.
[66] Kramsch, C. Context and Culture in Language Teaching [M].上海外语教育出版社, 1994.
[67] Langacker, R.W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar [M]. Strandford: Strandford University Press, 1987/1999.
[68] Langacker, R.W. Grammar and Conceptualization [M]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1999.
[69] Langacker, R.W. Constructions in cognitive grammar [J]. English Linguistics, 2003, (20): 41-83.
[70] LeBlanc, C. & Courtel, C. Executive summary: the culture syllabus. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 1990, 47 (1), 82-92.
[71] LeBlanc, R. National Core French Study: A Synthesis [M]. Ottawa: Canadian Association of Second language Teachers, 1990.
[72] Lindholm-Learn, K. J. Dual Language Education [M]. Toronto: Multilingual Matters Ltd., 2001.
[73] Liu J. Measuring Interlanguage Pragmatic Knowledge of Chinese EFL Learners [M]. Frankfurtam Main: Peter Lang, 2006.
[74] Lyster, R. The role of analytic language teaching in French immersion programs [J]. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 1990, 47 (1):159-176.
[75] Lyster, R. Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms [J]. Language Learning, 1998, 48(2): 183-218.
[76] Lyster, R. Learning and Teaching Languages through Content: A Counterbalanced Approach [M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2007.
[77] Lyster, R & Mori R. Interaction feedback and instructional counterbalance [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2006, (28):269-300.
[78] Mackey, A. From introspections, brain scans, and memory tests to the role of social context: Advancing research on interaction and learning [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2006, (28): 369-379.
[79] Massey, M. Directions in ESL curriculum [J]. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 1985, 42 (2):263-270.
[80] McDonough, K. Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners’response on ESL question development [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2005, (27):79-103.
[81] McIlrath, D. and Huitt, W. The Teaching-Learning Process: A Discussion of Models [M]. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University, 1995.
[82] Milner, J. O. and Milner, L. F. M. Bridging English [M]. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall, 2003.
[83] Miri, B, Ben-Chaim D & Zoller, U. Purposely teaching for the promotion of higher-order thinking skills: A case of critical thinking [J]. Research in Science Education, 2007, (4):353-369.
[84] Mitchell, R. & Florence, M. Second Language Learning Theories (2nd edition) [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
[85] Naimen, N., Frohlich, M., Stern, H. & Todesco. A. The Good Language Learner [Z]. Toronto: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 1978.
[86] Naiman, N. The Good Language Learner [M]. Toronto: Modern Language Center, 1996.
[87] Nassaji, H. Effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explicitness [J]. Language Learning, 2009, (2):411-452.
[88] O'Malley, J. M. and Chamot, A. V. Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition [M]. London: Macmillan, 1990.
[89] Omabgio, A. Teaching Language in Context [M]. Heinle & Heinle Puhliehei, Inc., 1986.
[90] New Brunswick Department of Education. Atlantic Canada English Language Arts Curriculum, High School [Z]. Fredericton: Education Curriculum Department Branch, 1998.
[91] Osborne, K. Education: A Guide to the Canadian School Debate– Or, Who Wants What and Why [M]. Toronto: The Penguin Group, 1999.
[92] Oxford, R.. Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know [M]. New York: Newbury House, 1990a.
[93] Oxford, R.L. Language learning strategies [A]. In R. Carter and D. Nunan (Eds.). The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages [C]. UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001.166-172.
[94] Poyen, J. The national core French study: a national curriculum project [J].The Canadian Modern Language Review, 1990, 47 (1):20-31.
[95] Price, L. Individual Differences in Learning:Cognitive control,cognitive style,and learning style [J]. Educational Psychology, 2004, (5): 681-698.
[96] Ranta, L. The role of learner’s language analytic ability in the communicative classroom [A]. In P. Robinson (ed.). Individual Differences and Instructed Language Learning [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2001.
[97] Rehorick, S. and Rehorick, D. Merging language and content through multidimensional curriculum design [J]. Comparative Culture, 1997, (3):24-28.
[98] Reid, J. M. Learning styles in the ESL/EFL Classroom [M]. Beijing: Foreign LanguageTeaching and Research Press, 2002.
[99] Richards, J. Communicative Language Teaching Today [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
[100] Robinson, P. Aptitude and second language acquisition [J]. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 2005, (25): 46-73.
[101] Rubin, J. What the‘Good Language Learner’can teach us [J]. TESOL Quarterly, 1975, 9(1): 41-51.
[102] Rubin, J. Learner strategies: Theoretical assumptions, research history and typology [A]. In A. Wenden and J. Rubin (Eds.). Learner Strategies and Language Learning[C]. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall,1987.15-29.
[103] Saade, R. G. & Kira, D. Computer anxiety in E-learning: The effect of computer self-efficacy [J]. Journal of Information Technology Education, 2009, (8):178-190.
[104] Selinker, L. Interlanguage [J]. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 1972, (10): 209.
[105] Sharma, R. D. and Xiaoshen, Z. Learning and teaching in Chinese Higher Education: student perceptions in English as foreign language program [A]. In the Refereed Proceedings of the 2005 SEAAIR Conference [C]. Bali, Indonesia, ISBN 979-25-0220-3, 2005.
[106] Shaw, P. A. With one stone: models of instruction and their curricular implications in an advanced content-based foreign language program [A]. InS. B. Stryker and B. M. Leaver(ed.). Content-based Instruction in Foreign Language Education: Models and Meth ods [C].Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press, 1997.261-282.
[107] Skehan, P. Individual differences in second language learning [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1991, (13): 275-298.
[108] Sparks, R. L. et al. Differences in native-language skills, foreign-language aptitude and foreign-language grades among high-, average- and low-proficiency foreign-language learners: Two studies [J]. Language Testing, 1998, 15(2):181–216.
[109] Stern, H. H. What can we learn from the good language learner? [J]. Canadian Modern Language Review, 1975. 31.
[110] Stern, H. H. French core programs across Canada: How can we improve them? [J]. The Ontario Modern Language Teachers’Association, 1982, 39 (1):34-47.
[111] Stern, H. H. Fundamental concepts of language teaching [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983.
[112] Stern, H. H. Issues and options in language teaching [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.
[113] Stoller, F. Content-Based Instruction:A Shell for Language Teaching or a Framework for Strategic Language and Content Learning? [M]. TESOL: P1enary Address, 2002.
[114] Tasmanian Government. Time undated. [EB/OL]. English: Key Learning Processes, Online documents. http://www.education.tas.gov.au/english/key.htm.
[115] Taylor, L. Developing assessment literacy [J]. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 2009, (29): 21-36.
[116] Tremblay, R. and LeBlanc, R. Developing teaching materials for a multidimensionalcurriculum [J]. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 1990, 47 (1):132-156.
[117] Vanpatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.). Theories in Second Language Acquisition:An introduction [C].New York:Lawrence Erlbaum, 2007.
[118] W. Croft & D. A. Cruse. Cognitive Linguistics [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
[119] Werner, H. Foreign language teaching- a modern building on historical foundations [J]. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2006, (16): 2-15.
[120] Zheng, Y. & Cheng, L. College English Test (CET) in China [J]. Language Testing, 2008, 25(3): 408-417.
[121]蔡基刚.大学英语教学:回顾、反思和研究[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2006.
[122]陈坚林.大学英语教材的现状与改革——第五代教材研发构想[J].外语教学与研究,2007,(5):374-378.
[123]陈琦、刘儒德.当代教育心理学[M].北京:北京师范大学出版社,2007.
[124]戴炜栋.构建具有中国特色的英语教学“一条龙”体系[J].外语教学与研究,2001,(5): 322-327.
[125]戴炜栋.立足国情,科学规划,推动我国外语教育的可持续发展[J].外语界,2009a, (5):2-9.
[126]戴炜栋.中国高校外语教育30年[J].外语界,2009b,(1):2-4.
[127]戴炜栋、蔡龙权.中介语的认知发生基础[J].外语与外语教学,2001,(3):1-5.
[128]戴炜栋、牛强.过渡语的石化现象及其教学启示[J].外语教学,1999,(2):13-14.
[129]戴炜栋、束定芳.试论影响外语习得的若干重要因素[J].外国语,1994,(4):1-10.
[130]戴炜栋.温州大学罗山讲堂报告:改革开放三十年和外语教学.[R]. http://wyxy.wzu.edu.cn/xygk/shownews.aspx?ID=1885。温州:温州大学育英图书馆学术报告厅。2008.12.17.
[131]戴炜栋、杨仙菊.第二语言语用习得的课堂教学模式[J].外语界,2005,(1):2-8.
[132]戴运财、胡慧玲、章晓雯.从学习者英语关系从句的习得看关系从句习得的理论假设[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2008,(5):71-77.
[133]戴运财、尤陈静、陈旭英.英语关系从句的教学——标记投射模式与可教性假设探究[J],杭州师范大学学报(人文社科版),2008,(6):115-118.
[134]常俊跃、刘莉.“内容依托”教学模式给大学双语教学的借鉴[J].江苏高教,2009,(1): 81-83.
[135]程晓堂、康艳.关于高校英语教学若干问题的思考[A],载庄智象,中国外语教育发展战略论坛[C].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2009,277-287.
[136]冯涟漪、龚昭.元认知与英语口语学习的相关研究[J].外语界,2007,(2):58-64.
[137]冯敏、邹囡囡.合作学习法——《英语国家概况》教学的有效方法[J].教育理论与实践, 2006,(7):60-62.
[138]傅政.二语学习成功者策略研究初探[J].外语教学,2001,(2):23-26.
[139]高航.认知语法的语用视角:基于用法的动态模式述评[J].外语学刊,2009,(5): 53-56.
[140]桂诗春.我国英语专业学生英语词汇量的调查和分析[J].现代外语,1985,(1): 1-6.
[141]韩梅、林立.对一位英语学习成功者的调研及分析[J].中小学外语教学,1999,(10).
[142]胡壮麟、朱永生、张德禄、李战子.系统功能语言学概论[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2008.
[143]教育部高等教育司.大学英语课程教学要求[S].上海:上海外语教育出版社。2007.
[144]李荫华等.全新版大学英语综合教程[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2004.
[145]刘列斌. EFL中为学习者而纠错[J].湖北广播电视大学学报,2006,(2):40-42.
[146]鲁凌.优秀生英语学习成功之道[J].广西商业高等专科学校学报,2002,(4).
[147]皮连生.《智育心理学》[M].人民教育出版社,1996.
[148]沈彩芬、程东元多.元智能理论与外语教学[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2004,(4):39-43.
[149]施渝.国外二语听力元认知研究综述[J].外语界,2009,(1):57-63.
[150]束定芳.论隐喻产生的认知、心理和语言原因[J].外语学刊,2000,(2):72.
[151]束定芳.外语课堂教学新模式刍议[J].外语界,2006,(4):21-29.
[152]束定芳.外语教学改革:问题与对策[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2004.
[153]束定芳,陈素燕.宁波诺丁汉大学英语教学的成功经验对我国大学英语教学改革的启发[J].外语界,2009,(6):23-29.
[154]束定芳、庄智象.现代外语教学理论、实践与方法(修订版) [M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2008.
[155]文秋芳.英语学习策略论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1995.
[156]文秋芳.外语教学与研究英语学习成功者与不成功者方法上的差异[J].外语教学与研究,1995,(3):61-66.
[157]阳其荣.错误分析与外语教学中的纠错问题[J].广西师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2002,(1):228-233.
[158]杨盈、庄恩平.构建外语教学跨文化交际能力框架[J].外语界,2007,(4):13-21.
[159]张立.元认知意识培训——学习者自主学习能力提高的重要前提[J].外语界,2009,(4):56-60.
[160]赵萱.二语习得中的中介语及其石化现象分析[J].沈阳师范大学学报,2006,(3):140.
[161]庄智象、束定芳.外语学习者策略研究与外语教学[J].现代外语,1994,(3):28-32.
[162]庄智象.中国外语教育发展战略论坛[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2009.
[163]朱晓申.基于WebCT的大学英语听力课主题教学研究[J].外语电化教学,2006,(5):65-68.
[164]朱晓申、邓天中等.交互性外语教学:理论与实践[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2007.
[165]朱晓申.大学英语教学中语法运用影响因素及对策研究——以关系从句为例[J].外语电化教学,2010,(3):71-75.
[166]朱晓申.大学英语语境化教学研究[J].外语界,2010,(4):50-56.