3Is与3Ps
|
摘要
一直以来,写作课被认为是外语教学的重要组成部分。然而,现时的写作课对英语专业的学生来说仍然固守以教师和教科书为中心、自上而下的传统外语教学模式,这样直接导致了学生写作水平得不到提高。
因此,本文把3Is的教学模式应用到写作课程教学中。它与数据驱动式学习是一致的。数据驱动式学习理论认为,学习者不应该由教师传授某一语言特征,而是首先呈现给学习者语言学习材料,再让学习者归纳总结出语言特征。因此,数据驱动式学习理论倡导的是一种以学习者为中心及归纳式的教学模式。
本文研究参与者为两个自然班共62名大学英语专业二年级学生。其中一个班被随机定位实验班,采用3Is写作教学法。该班中选取的27名学生构成实验组。另一个班是对照班,采用的是3Ps的写作教学模式。同样从该班中选取的27名学生构成了对照组。两个组在任课老师,教材,授课时间等方面都相同,唯一的区别在于采用了不同的教学方法。教学实验前后,对两个班的学生进行了两次英语写作测试。之后,对实验组和对照组的受试的数据主要运用了独立样本T检验,非参数检验,单因素方差分析和协方差分析。
实验结果表明,3Is写作教学法确实比3Ps写作教学法有显著的优势,能更好地帮助中国英语专业的大学生提高写作水平。此外,对于写作水平低的学生来说,3Is写作教学法比3Ps写作教学法也有显著的优势,更有成效。
这些结果对中国大学英语专业写作教学有一定的启示作用。研究结果表明,3Is写作教学法不仅能为教学活动提供丰富的语言材料,而且必将促使语言学习者的自主学习。
It is well acknowledged that writing has long been regarded as one of the most important aspects of teaching English as a foreign language. However, current English writing course for English major students still adheres to a traditional top-down (deductive) pattern of teacher-centered and textbook-focused teaching, which works with low efficiency in developing students'English writing ability.
Accordingly, the 3I's approach was adapted in this study to the instruction of the writing course for college English major students, which is in line with data-driven learning (DDL). DDL does not teach a language feature, but presents learners with evidence and asks them to make hypotheses and draw conclusion, which advocates the pattern of student-centered and bottom-up (inductive) learning.
62 college students (second-year English majors) from two intact classes participated in this study. One class formed the experimental class receiving the 3I's approach.27 students from this class were selected as subjects of the experimental group. In contrast, the other class served as the control class, taught with the 3P's approach. Similarly,27 students sampled from this class formed the control group of subjects. All the other conditions were equal for the two groups (and the two classes as well):the same teacher, textbooks and length of class time, etc.
Data were collected from two writing tests:the pretest and the posttest. The writing tests were scored by three raters. Then statistic procedures of 2-related-samples non-parametric test, k-related-samples non-parametric tests, one-way ANOVA, independent-samples t tests, ANCOVA were employed to analyze the data.
The results showed that the 3I's approach indeed had a significantly better effect on improving the Chinese-speaking college English majors'writing proficiency than did the 3P's approach. Besides, the 3I's approach was significantly more effective than the 3P's approach in teaching English writing to poor Chinese college English majors.
The findings of the study have certain pedagogical implications for class teaching of English writing in China. They suggest that the application of the 3I's approach will not only bring change to the teaching materials of the writing course, but also promote students'autonomous learning in the classroom.
因此,本文把3Is的教学模式应用到写作课程教学中。它与数据驱动式学习是一致的。数据驱动式学习理论认为,学习者不应该由教师传授某一语言特征,而是首先呈现给学习者语言学习材料,再让学习者归纳总结出语言特征。因此,数据驱动式学习理论倡导的是一种以学习者为中心及归纳式的教学模式。
本文研究参与者为两个自然班共62名大学英语专业二年级学生。其中一个班被随机定位实验班,采用3Is写作教学法。该班中选取的27名学生构成实验组。另一个班是对照班,采用的是3Ps的写作教学模式。同样从该班中选取的27名学生构成了对照组。两个组在任课老师,教材,授课时间等方面都相同,唯一的区别在于采用了不同的教学方法。教学实验前后,对两个班的学生进行了两次英语写作测试。之后,对实验组和对照组的受试的数据主要运用了独立样本T检验,非参数检验,单因素方差分析和协方差分析。
实验结果表明,3Is写作教学法确实比3Ps写作教学法有显著的优势,能更好地帮助中国英语专业的大学生提高写作水平。此外,对于写作水平低的学生来说,3Is写作教学法比3Ps写作教学法也有显著的优势,更有成效。
这些结果对中国大学英语专业写作教学有一定的启示作用。研究结果表明,3Is写作教学法不仅能为教学活动提供丰富的语言材料,而且必将促使语言学习者的自主学习。
It is well acknowledged that writing has long been regarded as one of the most important aspects of teaching English as a foreign language. However, current English writing course for English major students still adheres to a traditional top-down (deductive) pattern of teacher-centered and textbook-focused teaching, which works with low efficiency in developing students'English writing ability.
Accordingly, the 3I's approach was adapted in this study to the instruction of the writing course for college English major students, which is in line with data-driven learning (DDL). DDL does not teach a language feature, but presents learners with evidence and asks them to make hypotheses and draw conclusion, which advocates the pattern of student-centered and bottom-up (inductive) learning.
62 college students (second-year English majors) from two intact classes participated in this study. One class formed the experimental class receiving the 3I's approach.27 students from this class were selected as subjects of the experimental group. In contrast, the other class served as the control class, taught with the 3P's approach. Similarly,27 students sampled from this class formed the control group of subjects. All the other conditions were equal for the two groups (and the two classes as well):the same teacher, textbooks and length of class time, etc.
Data were collected from two writing tests:the pretest and the posttest. The writing tests were scored by three raters. Then statistic procedures of 2-related-samples non-parametric test, k-related-samples non-parametric tests, one-way ANOVA, independent-samples t tests, ANCOVA were employed to analyze the data.
The results showed that the 3I's approach indeed had a significantly better effect on improving the Chinese-speaking college English majors'writing proficiency than did the 3P's approach. Besides, the 3I's approach was significantly more effective than the 3P's approach in teaching English writing to poor Chinese college English majors.
The findings of the study have certain pedagogical implications for class teaching of English writing in China. They suggest that the application of the 3I's approach will not only bring change to the teaching materials of the writing course, but also promote students'autonomous learning in the classroom.
引文
Badger, R.,& White, G. (2000). A process genre approach to teaching writing. ELT Journal,54(2),152—160.
Bell, J. H. (1991). Using peer response groups in ESL writing classes. TESL Canada Journal,8,65—71.
Bernardini, S. (2004). Corpora in the classroom:An overview and some reflections on future developments. In J. Sinclair (Ed.), How to use corpora in language teaching. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Braine, G. (2003). From a teacher-centered to a student-centered approach:A study of peer feedback in Hong Kong writing class. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication,13, 269—288.
Carter, R.,& McCarthy, M. (1995). Grammar and the spoken language. Applied Linguistics,16(2),141—158.
Ding, W.-D.,& Wu, B. (1996). Handbook of English writing. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Ellis, R. (1988). The role of practice in classroom learning. AILA Review,5,20—39.
Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed second language acquisition. Oxford:Blackwell.
Gavioli, L. (2005). Exploring corpora for ESP learning. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Hadley, G. (2002). Sensing the winds of change:An introduction to data-driven learning. RELC Journal,33(2),99—124.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (1991). Pre-text:Task-related influences on the writer. In L. Hamp-Lyons (Ed.), Assessing second language writing in academic contexts (PP.87—107) Norwood, NJ:Ablex.
Hoover, W. A. (1996). The practice implications of constructivism. SEDL Letter, 9(3).Retrieved May 5,2010, from http://www.sedl.org/pubs/sedletter/v09n03/practice.html
Hunston, S. (2002). Corpora in applied linguistics. Cambridge University Press.
Huot, B. (1996). Toward a new theory of writing assessment. College Composition and Communication,47,549—566.
Johansson, S. (2009). Some thoughts on corpora and second language acquisition. In K. Aijmer (Ed.), Corpora and language teaching (pp.33—42). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Johns, T. (1991a). Should you be persuaded:Two samples of data-driven learning materials. In T. Johns & P. King (Eds.), ELR Journal 4:Classroom Concordancing, 12—16.
Johns, T. (1991b). From printout to handout:Grammar and vocabulary teaching in the context of data-driven learning. In T. Johns & P. King (Eds.), ELR Journal 4: Classroom Concordancing,14—34.
Johns, T. (1994). From printout to handout:Grammar and vocabulary teaching in the context of data-driven learning. In T. Odlin (Ed.), Perspectives on pedagogical grammar (pp.293—313). Cambridge University Press.
Lee, I. (1997). Peer reviews in Hong Kong tertiary classroom. TESL Canada Journal,15, 58—59.
Lockhart, C.,& Ng, P. (1995). Analyzing talk in ESL peer response groups:Stances, functions, and content. Language Learning,45,605—655.
Long, M. H. (1997). Focus on form in task-based language teaching:Paper presented at the Fourth Annual McGraw-Hill Satellite Teleconference. Retrieved January 1,2010, from://www.mhhe.com/socscience/foreignlang/top.htm.
Lundstrom, K.,& Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive:The benefits of peer review to the reviewer's own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing,18, 30—45.
McEnery, T., Xiao, R.,&Tono, Y. (2006). Corpus-based language studies:An advanced resource book. London:Routledge.
Min, H. T. (2006). The effects of trained peer review on EFL students'revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing,15,118—141.
Nunan, D. (2000). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D. (2001). Second language teaching and learning. Beijing:Foreign Languages Teaching and Research Press.
Paulus, T. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing,8(3),265—289.
Raimes, A. (1991). Out of the woods:Emerging traditions in the teaching of writing. TESOL Quarterly,25 (3),55—60.
Silva, T. (1990). Second language composition instruction:Developments, issues, and directions in ESL. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing (pp.11—23). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sinclair, J. M. (2004). How to use corpora in language teaching. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Tang, G,& Tithecott, J. (1999). Peer response in ESL writing. TESL Canada Journal, 16(2),20—38.
Tribble, C. (1996). Writing. Oxford University Press.
Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge University Press.
Weir, C. J. (1990). Communicative language testing. Hemel Hempstead, UK:Prentice Hall Regents.
White, E. M. (1994). Teaching and assessing writing:Recent advances in understanding, evaluating and improving student performance (2nd ed.). San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
White, R.,& Arndt, V. (1991). Process writing. Harlow:Longman.
Willis, D. (1990). The lexical syllabus:A new approach to language teaching. London: Collins COBUILD.
Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Essex:Addison Wesley Longman.
Willis, J.,& Willis, D. (1996). Challenge and change in language teaching. London: Heinemann.
Wyrick, J. (1987). Steps to writing skill:A concise guide to composition (3rd ed.). Winston: Dryden Press.
Xiao, F.-S.(2007). Principles and strategies of English writing instruction. Shanghai University Press.
Yu, K-h. L. (2008). Application of online questionnaires in grammar teaching. In F. Zhang & B. Barder (Eds.), (pp.64—70). Hershey:Information Science Reference.
Bell, J. H. (1991). Using peer response groups in ESL writing classes. TESL Canada Journal,8,65—71.
Bernardini, S. (2004). Corpora in the classroom:An overview and some reflections on future developments. In J. Sinclair (Ed.), How to use corpora in language teaching. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Braine, G. (2003). From a teacher-centered to a student-centered approach:A study of peer feedback in Hong Kong writing class. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication,13, 269—288.
Carter, R.,& McCarthy, M. (1995). Grammar and the spoken language. Applied Linguistics,16(2),141—158.
Ding, W.-D.,& Wu, B. (1996). Handbook of English writing. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Ellis, R. (1988). The role of practice in classroom learning. AILA Review,5,20—39.
Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed second language acquisition. Oxford:Blackwell.
Gavioli, L. (2005). Exploring corpora for ESP learning. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Hadley, G. (2002). Sensing the winds of change:An introduction to data-driven learning. RELC Journal,33(2),99—124.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (1991). Pre-text:Task-related influences on the writer. In L. Hamp-Lyons (Ed.), Assessing second language writing in academic contexts (PP.87—107) Norwood, NJ:Ablex.
Hoover, W. A. (1996). The practice implications of constructivism. SEDL Letter, 9(3).Retrieved May 5,2010, from http://www.sedl.org/pubs/sedletter/v09n03/practice.html
Hunston, S. (2002). Corpora in applied linguistics. Cambridge University Press.
Huot, B. (1996). Toward a new theory of writing assessment. College Composition and Communication,47,549—566.
Johansson, S. (2009). Some thoughts on corpora and second language acquisition. In K. Aijmer (Ed.), Corpora and language teaching (pp.33—42). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Johns, T. (1991a). Should you be persuaded:Two samples of data-driven learning materials. In T. Johns & P. King (Eds.), ELR Journal 4:Classroom Concordancing, 12—16.
Johns, T. (1991b). From printout to handout:Grammar and vocabulary teaching in the context of data-driven learning. In T. Johns & P. King (Eds.), ELR Journal 4: Classroom Concordancing,14—34.
Johns, T. (1994). From printout to handout:Grammar and vocabulary teaching in the context of data-driven learning. In T. Odlin (Ed.), Perspectives on pedagogical grammar (pp.293—313). Cambridge University Press.
Lee, I. (1997). Peer reviews in Hong Kong tertiary classroom. TESL Canada Journal,15, 58—59.
Lockhart, C.,& Ng, P. (1995). Analyzing talk in ESL peer response groups:Stances, functions, and content. Language Learning,45,605—655.
Long, M. H. (1997). Focus on form in task-based language teaching:Paper presented at the Fourth Annual McGraw-Hill Satellite Teleconference. Retrieved January 1,2010, from://www.mhhe.com/socscience/foreignlang/top.htm.
Lundstrom, K.,& Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive:The benefits of peer review to the reviewer's own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing,18, 30—45.
McEnery, T., Xiao, R.,&Tono, Y. (2006). Corpus-based language studies:An advanced resource book. London:Routledge.
Min, H. T. (2006). The effects of trained peer review on EFL students'revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing,15,118—141.
Nunan, D. (2000). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D. (2001). Second language teaching and learning. Beijing:Foreign Languages Teaching and Research Press.
Paulus, T. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing,8(3),265—289.
Raimes, A. (1991). Out of the woods:Emerging traditions in the teaching of writing. TESOL Quarterly,25 (3),55—60.
Silva, T. (1990). Second language composition instruction:Developments, issues, and directions in ESL. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing (pp.11—23). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sinclair, J. M. (2004). How to use corpora in language teaching. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Tang, G,& Tithecott, J. (1999). Peer response in ESL writing. TESL Canada Journal, 16(2),20—38.
Tribble, C. (1996). Writing. Oxford University Press.
Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge University Press.
Weir, C. J. (1990). Communicative language testing. Hemel Hempstead, UK:Prentice Hall Regents.
White, E. M. (1994). Teaching and assessing writing:Recent advances in understanding, evaluating and improving student performance (2nd ed.). San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
White, R.,& Arndt, V. (1991). Process writing. Harlow:Longman.
Willis, D. (1990). The lexical syllabus:A new approach to language teaching. London: Collins COBUILD.
Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Essex:Addison Wesley Longman.
Willis, J.,& Willis, D. (1996). Challenge and change in language teaching. London: Heinemann.
Wyrick, J. (1987). Steps to writing skill:A concise guide to composition (3rd ed.). Winston: Dryden Press.
Xiao, F.-S.(2007). Principles and strategies of English writing instruction. Shanghai University Press.
Yu, K-h. L. (2008). Application of online questionnaires in grammar teaching. In F. Zhang & B. Barder (Eds.), (pp.64—70). Hershey:Information Science Reference.