计算机辅助语言学习环境下输入理论与自主语言学习研究
摘要
信息与通讯技术的发展和进步推动社会向知识型社会转变,推动着经济向全球化发展。英语在国际交流中的桥梁作用更为凸现。技术的进步同时也为满足越来越多的学习者的不同语言学习需求和英语教学模式的改革提供了有力的技术支撑。中国英语教学同样应顺应这一趋势。以IT技术为基础的,更具体得说以电脑/网络为基础的英语教学手段和英语自主学习模式在国家教育部颁发的《大学英语课程要求》中已有明确规定和要求。
国外研究者已经就计算机辅助语言教学(CALL),语言学习者自主(ALL),或者这两者的结合展开了理论和实践方面的大量研究。自计算机辅助教学和语言学习者自主理论被引入我国英语教学领域,越来越多国内研究者开始涉足研究这两种教学方法和模式在我国英语教学中的理论价值和实践价值。然而综观国内外的研究成果,把二语习得理论中的“输入理论”与计算机辅助教学方法和语言自主学习理论结合起来综合探讨提高学习者的英语水平的研究似乎不多。因此,本文作者试图通过建立一个新的英语学习模式---语言输入、学习者、自主学习、计算机辅助学习环境为其中的四项要素,该四项要素共同作用---来调查研究英语教学的有效性,并努力探索三个问题的答案,即:1)计算机辅助教学环境中多层面、多渠道信息输入是否能促进学习者的学习自主性?2)计算机辅助教学环境中多层面、多渠道信息输入如何促进学习者的学习自主性?3)计算机辅助教学环境中多渠道信息输入与语言自主学习模式的结合能否提高学习者语言输出能力?
文献综述首先介绍了“输入理论”,尤其是克拉伸的“输入假设”。该假设强调语言输入的四个最佳输入标准。而计算机和互联网的运用无疑可以从技术层面上满足这四项标准。计算机辅助教学的发展的三个阶段同样也强调如何为学习者提供更多的真实的目的语的输入。显而易见,在计算机辅助语言教学环境中,语言信息的输入可以得到强化和多样化。语言输入的共时性会对学习者理念,包括:学习者的信心、动机、好奇心、兴趣等产生重要影响,同时对学习者的感官产生很大的触动。语言输入的多样性和多渠道性使学习者更乐意接受和采用新的学习模式和手段,这为培养学习者自主学习能力创造了前提。
计算机辅助教学和自主学习理论的发展是共时的,相互交织的。许多著名的学者对自主学习的发展作出巨大的贡献.作者结合前人的研究成果,旨在强调学习者的学习自控性、自主学习能力的可培养性以及自主学习可产生有效的学习效果。事实上,计算机辅助教学和自主学习理论不仅具有相似的时间发展轨迹而且两者都能在对当代外语教学具有指导意义的建构主义理论中找到理论支撑。建构主义强调学习者的自主性,学习者在学习中的中心地位,以及没有压力的宽松的学习环境。简言之,文献综述旨在建构该论文的理论框架,确保实证研究中结论的可信度。
笔者就其所工作的学院的90名英语和信息管理专业的学生进行了问卷调查,并对该学院的04级的英语和信息管理专业的两个班级进行了实证调查。通过对所得数据的分析研究得出以下结论:首先,大部分学生对CALL持肯定态度;其次,部分学生对ALL不是十分了解,不会自主学习;再次,计算机辅助环境下多层面信息输入能促进自主学习;另外,在自主学习模式中,以计算机和网络为支撑的信息输入渠道和信息量能使学生更加积极;最后,计算机辅助学习环境中,多层面的信息输入能帮助提高学生的英语水平。这些结果反映出学习者、语言输入、ALL、CALL这四个因素之间的相互作用能提高学习者的英语输出能力。这些发现同样也给我们提供了一些启示:语言学习与新的信息技术之间的结合应进一步加强;自主学习的相关知识以及自主学习的模式应该受到更多的关注;提高英语水平,自主学习模式和计算机辅助学习方法的综合运用应该在更广的范围提倡。
Information and communication technology accelerates the coming of Knowledge Society and global economy, which highlights the bridging function of English language in worldwide communication and provides technological support to reform the English language education model to cater to an increasing number of learners’diversified needs. English education in China is no exception to this trend. IT-based, to be more specific, computer/internet-based English education approach and autonomous language learning model have been strongly advocated and stipulated in College English Curriculum Requirements issued by National Education Ministry.
Theoretical and empirical researches on computer-assisted language education, learners’autonomous language learning, and / or on the combination of both have been and are being conducted a lot abroad. Since the introduction of computer-assisted language learning and autonomous language learning in Chinese college English education, more and more domestic English language researchers have set their feet in exploring their theoretical and practical value. However, among so many researches, there seem fewer studies in this respect that have been done from the angle of the integration of input theory, CALL and ALL. Therefore, by endeavoring to finding out the answers to the following three questions: 1) does the multi-facet information input in CALL environment promote learners’autonomous language learning? 2) how does the multi-facet information input in CALL environment foster learners’autonomous language learning?and 3) do the multi-channel input and autonomous language learning in CALL environment make learners more productive?, the author, in the present study, makes a tentative attempt to investigate the efficacy of English teaching with the co-work of four elements --- language input, learner, learner’s autonomous learning, and computer-assisted language learning.
The literature review begins with the introduction of input theory, Krashen’s input hypothesis in particular, which emphasizes the four criteria of the optimal input. Blessedly, the four criteria can be technologically met by employing computer and internet, and have always been a constant pursuit in the three phases of the development of CALL: language input in CALL context can be greatly strengthened and diversified. Synchronous language input exerts significant impact on learners’beliefs --- their confidence, motivation, curiosity, interest, etc. and deeply touches their arousal senses. The diversified and multi-channeled language input brings learners intrinsic psychological change. Learners are more apt to accept new model and use new devices to facilitate their language learning, which fully prepares them for autonomous language learning.
The development of CALL interweaves with that of language education theories. The same is true of the development of ALL. Renowned figures have made a lot of contributions to ALL, which highlights learners’self-controlling of study, possibility of cultivating learners’ability of autonomous learning and learners’effective achievement in ALL. In fact, ALL follows almost the same chronological developing track as CALL. In the meantime, both CALL and ALL find their theoretical support in constructivism theory, which focuses on offering learners with more freedom in their decisions concerning their study and tops non-pressured learning environment. In one word, the author attempts to build an overarching framework in which input theory, CALL, and ALL co-work and intermingle with each other, with constructivism as their supportive theory. Therefore results to be drawn in the survey and experiment studies can have sound theory basis.
From the survey study and the experiment study, respectively conducted among 98 students and two intact classes with 30 students for each from the college where the author is working, the gathered data are carefully analyzed and synthesized. The results drawn from the studies are: first, most students hold positive attitudes towards CALL; second, quite many a student is at loss as to ALL; third, multi-facet information input in CALL environment fosters ALL; fourth, information input channel and load via computers and internet make students more active in ALL; finally, multi-facet information input in CALL environment makes students more productive. All these results reflect that learners, language input, ALL, and CALL environment are four crucial elements which influence the language learning productivity and with their co-work, learners’language proficiency can be achieved. These discoveries also imply that the integration between language learning and new technologies, especially IT, should be furthered and reinforced, that more emphasis on the knowledge of ALL and wide practice of ALL should be attached, and that the combination of ALL and CALL are worth advocating to achieve better English learning.
国外研究者已经就计算机辅助语言教学(CALL),语言学习者自主(ALL),或者这两者的结合展开了理论和实践方面的大量研究。自计算机辅助教学和语言学习者自主理论被引入我国英语教学领域,越来越多国内研究者开始涉足研究这两种教学方法和模式在我国英语教学中的理论价值和实践价值。然而综观国内外的研究成果,把二语习得理论中的“输入理论”与计算机辅助教学方法和语言自主学习理论结合起来综合探讨提高学习者的英语水平的研究似乎不多。因此,本文作者试图通过建立一个新的英语学习模式---语言输入、学习者、自主学习、计算机辅助学习环境为其中的四项要素,该四项要素共同作用---来调查研究英语教学的有效性,并努力探索三个问题的答案,即:1)计算机辅助教学环境中多层面、多渠道信息输入是否能促进学习者的学习自主性?2)计算机辅助教学环境中多层面、多渠道信息输入如何促进学习者的学习自主性?3)计算机辅助教学环境中多渠道信息输入与语言自主学习模式的结合能否提高学习者语言输出能力?
文献综述首先介绍了“输入理论”,尤其是克拉伸的“输入假设”。该假设强调语言输入的四个最佳输入标准。而计算机和互联网的运用无疑可以从技术层面上满足这四项标准。计算机辅助教学的发展的三个阶段同样也强调如何为学习者提供更多的真实的目的语的输入。显而易见,在计算机辅助语言教学环境中,语言信息的输入可以得到强化和多样化。语言输入的共时性会对学习者理念,包括:学习者的信心、动机、好奇心、兴趣等产生重要影响,同时对学习者的感官产生很大的触动。语言输入的多样性和多渠道性使学习者更乐意接受和采用新的学习模式和手段,这为培养学习者自主学习能力创造了前提。
计算机辅助教学和自主学习理论的发展是共时的,相互交织的。许多著名的学者对自主学习的发展作出巨大的贡献.作者结合前人的研究成果,旨在强调学习者的学习自控性、自主学习能力的可培养性以及自主学习可产生有效的学习效果。事实上,计算机辅助教学和自主学习理论不仅具有相似的时间发展轨迹而且两者都能在对当代外语教学具有指导意义的建构主义理论中找到理论支撑。建构主义强调学习者的自主性,学习者在学习中的中心地位,以及没有压力的宽松的学习环境。简言之,文献综述旨在建构该论文的理论框架,确保实证研究中结论的可信度。
笔者就其所工作的学院的90名英语和信息管理专业的学生进行了问卷调查,并对该学院的04级的英语和信息管理专业的两个班级进行了实证调查。通过对所得数据的分析研究得出以下结论:首先,大部分学生对CALL持肯定态度;其次,部分学生对ALL不是十分了解,不会自主学习;再次,计算机辅助环境下多层面信息输入能促进自主学习;另外,在自主学习模式中,以计算机和网络为支撑的信息输入渠道和信息量能使学生更加积极;最后,计算机辅助学习环境中,多层面的信息输入能帮助提高学生的英语水平。这些结果反映出学习者、语言输入、ALL、CALL这四个因素之间的相互作用能提高学习者的英语输出能力。这些发现同样也给我们提供了一些启示:语言学习与新的信息技术之间的结合应进一步加强;自主学习的相关知识以及自主学习的模式应该受到更多的关注;提高英语水平,自主学习模式和计算机辅助学习方法的综合运用应该在更广的范围提倡。
Information and communication technology accelerates the coming of Knowledge Society and global economy, which highlights the bridging function of English language in worldwide communication and provides technological support to reform the English language education model to cater to an increasing number of learners’diversified needs. English education in China is no exception to this trend. IT-based, to be more specific, computer/internet-based English education approach and autonomous language learning model have been strongly advocated and stipulated in College English Curriculum Requirements issued by National Education Ministry.
Theoretical and empirical researches on computer-assisted language education, learners’autonomous language learning, and / or on the combination of both have been and are being conducted a lot abroad. Since the introduction of computer-assisted language learning and autonomous language learning in Chinese college English education, more and more domestic English language researchers have set their feet in exploring their theoretical and practical value. However, among so many researches, there seem fewer studies in this respect that have been done from the angle of the integration of input theory, CALL and ALL. Therefore, by endeavoring to finding out the answers to the following three questions: 1) does the multi-facet information input in CALL environment promote learners’autonomous language learning? 2) how does the multi-facet information input in CALL environment foster learners’autonomous language learning?and 3) do the multi-channel input and autonomous language learning in CALL environment make learners more productive?, the author, in the present study, makes a tentative attempt to investigate the efficacy of English teaching with the co-work of four elements --- language input, learner, learner’s autonomous learning, and computer-assisted language learning.
The literature review begins with the introduction of input theory, Krashen’s input hypothesis in particular, which emphasizes the four criteria of the optimal input. Blessedly, the four criteria can be technologically met by employing computer and internet, and have always been a constant pursuit in the three phases of the development of CALL: language input in CALL context can be greatly strengthened and diversified. Synchronous language input exerts significant impact on learners’beliefs --- their confidence, motivation, curiosity, interest, etc. and deeply touches their arousal senses. The diversified and multi-channeled language input brings learners intrinsic psychological change. Learners are more apt to accept new model and use new devices to facilitate their language learning, which fully prepares them for autonomous language learning.
The development of CALL interweaves with that of language education theories. The same is true of the development of ALL. Renowned figures have made a lot of contributions to ALL, which highlights learners’self-controlling of study, possibility of cultivating learners’ability of autonomous learning and learners’effective achievement in ALL. In fact, ALL follows almost the same chronological developing track as CALL. In the meantime, both CALL and ALL find their theoretical support in constructivism theory, which focuses on offering learners with more freedom in their decisions concerning their study and tops non-pressured learning environment. In one word, the author attempts to build an overarching framework in which input theory, CALL, and ALL co-work and intermingle with each other, with constructivism as their supportive theory. Therefore results to be drawn in the survey and experiment studies can have sound theory basis.
From the survey study and the experiment study, respectively conducted among 98 students and two intact classes with 30 students for each from the college where the author is working, the gathered data are carefully analyzed and synthesized. The results drawn from the studies are: first, most students hold positive attitudes towards CALL; second, quite many a student is at loss as to ALL; third, multi-facet information input in CALL environment fosters ALL; fourth, information input channel and load via computers and internet make students more active in ALL; finally, multi-facet information input in CALL environment makes students more productive. All these results reflect that learners, language input, ALL, and CALL environment are four crucial elements which influence the language learning productivity and with their co-work, learners’language proficiency can be achieved. These discoveries also imply that the integration between language learning and new technologies, especially IT, should be furthered and reinforced, that more emphasis on the knowledge of ALL and wide practice of ALL should be attached, and that the combination of ALL and CALL are worth advocating to achieve better English learning.
引文
Ahmad, K., Corbett, G., Rogers, M. and Sussex, R. (1985). Computers, Language Learning and Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Asher, J. (1977). Learning Another Language Through Actions: The Complete Teachers’ Guidebook. Los Gatos, Calif.: Sky Oaks Publications.
Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and Researching Autonomy in Language. Harlow: Longman.
Benson, P. and Lor, W. (1998). Making Sense of Autonomous Language Learning: Conceptions of Learning and Readiness for Autonomy. Hong Kong: English Centre, University of Hong Kong.
Benson, P. and Voller, P. (eds.) (1997). Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning. Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman.
Benson, P. (2005). Teaching and Reaching Autonomy in Language Learning. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Betty, K. (2005). Teaching and Researching Computer-assisted Language Learning. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Bolter, J.D. (1991). Writing Space: the Computer, Hypertext, and the History of Writing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Breen, P. (2005). Two Examples of CALL Use In The Classroom. Asian EFL Journal, 6.
Brumfit, C. J. and Johnson, K. (1999). The Communicative Approach to Language Teaching. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Bruner, J. S. (1966). Towards a Theory of Instruction. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Crook, C. (1996). Computers and the Collaborative Experience of Learning. London: Routledge.
Cotterall, S. (2000). Promoting learner autonomy through the curriculum: principles for designing language courses. English Language Teaching Journal 54/2: 109-117.
Cheon, H. (2003). The Viability of Computer Mediated Communication in the Korean Secondary EFL Classroom. Asian EFL Journal, 5(1).
Cook V.(1993). Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition [M]. London: Macmillan.
Candy, P. C. (1991). Self-direction for Lifelong Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Corterall, S. (1995). Developing a course strategy for learner autonomy. English Language Teaching Journal 49/3:219-227.
Dickinson, L. (1987). Self-Instruction in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dickinson, L. (1992). Learner Autonomy 2: Learner Training for Language Learning. Dublin: Authentik.
Dickinson, L. (1995). Autonomy and motivation: a literature review. System 23/2: 165-174.
Domyei, Z. (2005). Teaching and Researching Motivation. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Dewey, J. (1916/1966). Democracy and Education and Introduction to the Philosophy Classroom. New York: Free Press. (First published, 1916)
Ellis, R. (1999). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Ellis, R. (1999). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Ellis, R. (2000). Second Language Acquisition. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Ellis, R. (2006). Principles of Instructed Language Learning. Asian EFL Journal, 8(3).
Ellis, G. & B. Sinclair. (1989). Learning to Learn English: A Course in Learner Training. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Esch, E. (1996). “Promoting learner autonomy: criteria for the selection of appropriate methods’. In r. Pemberton et al. (eds.) Taking Control: Autonomy in Language Learning. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Fox, J. (1994). ‘Demystifying IT in second language learning.’ In E. Esch (ed.) Self-Access and the Adult Language Learner. London: CILT, pp.19-27.
Gale, L. E. (1989). Macario, Montevidisco, and Interactve Digame: developing interactive video for languagae instruction. In Smith, W. F. (ed.), Modern Tchnology in Foreign Language Education: Applications and Projects. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Co.
Gardner, D. and Miller, L. (2002). Establishing Self-Access from Theory to Practice. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Harding-Esch, E. (ed.). (1976). Self-Directed Learning and Autonomy. Cambridge: Department of Linguistics, University of Cambridge.
Hardisty, D. & Windeat, S. (1989). CALL. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy in Foreign Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
Holec. H. (1985). ‘On autonomy: some elementary concepts’. In P. Riley (ed>) Discourse and Learning. London: Longman, pp. 173-90.
Hatch, E. (ed.) (1978a). Second Language Acquisiton. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Hoogeveen (1995). Towards a new multimedia paradigm: is multimedia assisted instruction really effective? Ed-MEDIA 95, Graz, Austria.
Horwitz, E. (1987a). ‘Surveying student beliefs about language learning’ in Wenden and Rubin (eds.) 1987.
Illich, I. (1971) .Deschooling Society. London: Calder & Boyars.
Jarvis, H. (2005). Technology and Change in English Language Teaching (ELT). Asian EFL Journal, 7(4).
Kelly, G. (1955). The Psychology of Personal Constructs. New York: Norton.
Kelly, G. (1963). A Theory of Personality. New York: Norton.
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Krashen, S. (1981a.). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. London: Longman.
Little, D. (1991). Learner Autonomy1: Definitions, Issues and Problems. Dublin: Authentik.
Little, D. (1995). Learning as dialogue: the dependence of learner autonomy on teacher autonomy. System 23/2: 175-181.
Little, D. (Ed.). (1989). Self-Access Systems for Language Learning. Dublin: Authentik.
Long, M. (1983b). ‘Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation in the second language classroom” in M. Clarke and J. Handscombe (eds.). On TESOL’82: Pacific Perspectives on Language Learning Teaching. Washington D.C.: TESOL.
Long, M. (1983c). ‘Input and Second Language Acquisition Theory’. Paper presented at the Tenth University of Michigan Conference on Applied Linguistics.
Levy, M. (1997). Computer-assisted Language Learning: Context and Conceptualization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
MacNamara, J. (1972). ‘The cognitive basis of language learning in infants.’ Psychological Review 19:1-13.
Montali, J. and Lewandowski, L. (1996). Bimodal reading: benefits of a talking computer for a average and less skilled readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29(3):271-9.
Long, M. (1981). ‘Input, Interaction and Second Language Acquisition.’ Paper presented at the New York Academy of Sciences Conference on Native and Foreign Language Acquisition.
Long, M. and C. Sato. (1983). ‘Classroom foreigner talk discourse: forms and functions of teachers’ questions’ in Seliger and Long (eds.) 1983.
Lightbown, P. M. and Spada, N. (2002). How Languages are Learned. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Lightbown, P. (1983). ‘Exploring relationships between developmental and instructional sequences in L2 acquisition’ in Seliger and Long (eds.) 1983.
Little, D., D. Singleton, and W. Silvius (1984). Learning Second Languages in Ireland: Experience, Attitudes and Needs. Dublin: Trinity Colloge, Centre for Language and Communication Studies. Cited in Little and Singleton 1990.
Oxford, R. L. (1992). Language learning strategies in a mutshell: update and ESL suggestions. TESOL Journal 2 (2) 18-22.
Paris, S. G.. and Byrnes, J. Y. P. (1998). ‘The constructivist approach to self-regulation of learning in the classroom’. In B. J. Zimmerman and D. H. Schunk (eds.) Self-regulated Learning and Academic Achievement. New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 169-200.
Parker, K. and C. Chaudron. (1987). ‘The effects of linguistic simplifications and elaborative modifications on L2 comprehension’. University of Hawaii. Working Papers in ESL 6: 107-33.
Piaget, J. (1966). The Origins of Intelligence in Children. New York: International Universities Press.
Reid, Joy M.(2002). Learning Styles in the ESL/EFL Classroom. Beijing: Beijing Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Richards, J. C. and C. Lockhart (1994). Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, K. (2001). Movement in Language: Interactions and Architectures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 173.
Swain, M. (1985). ‘Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development’ in Gass and Madden (eds.) 1985.
Stevens, V. (1995). ‘Concordancing with language learners: why? when? what?’CAELL Journal, 6(2): 2-10.
Skehan, P. (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning (M). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 267-272.
Seliger, H. W. and Shohamy (1999, E.). Second Language Research Methods. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Snow, C. and M. Howfnagel-hohle. (1982). ‘School-age second language learners’ access to simplified linguistic input.’ Language Learning 32: 411-30.
Scrivener, J. (2002). Learning Teaching A Guide Book for English Language Teacher. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Underwood, J. (1984). Linguistics, Computers and the Language Teacher: a Communicative Approach. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Victori, M. and W. Lockhart (1995). Enhancing metacognition in self-directed language learning. System 23(2) 223-34.
Vygotsky, L. S.(1978). Mind in Society: the Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Wang, M. C. and Peverly, S. T. (1986). ‘The self-instructive process in classroom learning contexts’. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11:370-404.
Wagner-Gough, J. (1975). Comparative Studies in Second Language Learning. MA thesis, UCLA, California.
Warschauer, M., Turbee, L. and Roberts, B. (1996.) ‘Computer learning networks and student empowerment’, System, 24(1):1-14.
Warschauer, M. and Healey, D. (1998). Computers and language learning: an overview, Language Teaching 31: 51-7.
Warschauer, M. and Healey, D. (1998). ‘Computers and language learning: an overview’, Language Teaching, 31: 57-71.
Wenden, A. (1986a). ‘ What do second language learners know about their language learnng? A second look at retrospective accounts’. Applied Linguistics 7: 186-201.
Wenden, A. (1987A). ‘How to be a successful learner: insights and prescriptions from L2 learners’ in Wenden and Rubin (eds.)1987.
Widdowson, H. G. (1999). Aspects of Language Teaching. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Williams, M. & Burden, R. L. (2000). Psychology for Language Teachers. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaaching and Research Press.
陈晓,2004, 克拉森的 “输入”理论与英语教学, 北京第二外国语学院学报, 第六期。
董卫, 付黎旭,2003,背诵式输入在大学英语教学中的作用,外语界, 第四期。
何自然,2006,Cognitive Pragmatics --- Cognition in Verbal Communication. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
戴伟栋,何兆熊,2002, A New Concise Course on Linguistics for Student of English. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
华维芬, 2001,自主学习中心--- 一种新型的语言学习环境, 外语界,2001(5): 41-46.
华维芬, 2003, 关于建立自主学习中心的调查报告, 外语界, 2003 (6).
孔文, 李清华, 2002, 语言教学观与计算机辅助语言教学, 外语电化教学, 2002 (4): 34-38.
李炯英, 戴秀珍, 2001, 从 i+1 理论谈大学英语分级教学,山东外语教学, 2001 (1).
李志强, 2005, 计算机辅助语言学习环境下的自主语言学习, 硕士论文.
刘文忆,2005,基于建构主义和计算机多媒体的个性化英语教学,硕士论文.
梅德明,2003,Modern Linguistics A Concise Course. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
孙炳文, 叶朝成,2006, CALL 发展的历史描述及起理性再认识, 外语电化教学 4.
文秋芳,2004, Applied Linguistics--- Research Methods and Thesis Writing. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
吴刚,2001, 输入理论应用于大学英语教学的一次实验,外语界 2001(3).
严玲,2003, 从语言输入的角度看教师在多媒体教学中的角色,外语电化教学, 2003 (10): 44-46.
Asher, J. (1977). Learning Another Language Through Actions: The Complete Teachers’ Guidebook. Los Gatos, Calif.: Sky Oaks Publications.
Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and Researching Autonomy in Language. Harlow: Longman.
Benson, P. and Lor, W. (1998). Making Sense of Autonomous Language Learning: Conceptions of Learning and Readiness for Autonomy. Hong Kong: English Centre, University of Hong Kong.
Benson, P. and Voller, P. (eds.) (1997). Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning. Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman.
Benson, P. (2005). Teaching and Reaching Autonomy in Language Learning. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Betty, K. (2005). Teaching and Researching Computer-assisted Language Learning. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Bolter, J.D. (1991). Writing Space: the Computer, Hypertext, and the History of Writing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Breen, P. (2005). Two Examples of CALL Use In The Classroom. Asian EFL Journal, 6.
Brumfit, C. J. and Johnson, K. (1999). The Communicative Approach to Language Teaching. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Bruner, J. S. (1966). Towards a Theory of Instruction. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Crook, C. (1996). Computers and the Collaborative Experience of Learning. London: Routledge.
Cotterall, S. (2000). Promoting learner autonomy through the curriculum: principles for designing language courses. English Language Teaching Journal 54/2: 109-117.
Cheon, H. (2003). The Viability of Computer Mediated Communication in the Korean Secondary EFL Classroom. Asian EFL Journal, 5(1).
Cook V.(1993). Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition [M]. London: Macmillan.
Candy, P. C. (1991). Self-direction for Lifelong Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Corterall, S. (1995). Developing a course strategy for learner autonomy. English Language Teaching Journal 49/3:219-227.
Dickinson, L. (1987). Self-Instruction in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dickinson, L. (1992). Learner Autonomy 2: Learner Training for Language Learning. Dublin: Authentik.
Dickinson, L. (1995). Autonomy and motivation: a literature review. System 23/2: 165-174.
Domyei, Z. (2005). Teaching and Researching Motivation. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Dewey, J. (1916/1966). Democracy and Education and Introduction to the Philosophy Classroom. New York: Free Press. (First published, 1916)
Ellis, R. (1999). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Ellis, R. (1999). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Ellis, R. (2000). Second Language Acquisition. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Ellis, R. (2006). Principles of Instructed Language Learning. Asian EFL Journal, 8(3).
Ellis, G. & B. Sinclair. (1989). Learning to Learn English: A Course in Learner Training. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Esch, E. (1996). “Promoting learner autonomy: criteria for the selection of appropriate methods’. In r. Pemberton et al. (eds.) Taking Control: Autonomy in Language Learning. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Fox, J. (1994). ‘Demystifying IT in second language learning.’ In E. Esch (ed.) Self-Access and the Adult Language Learner. London: CILT, pp.19-27.
Gale, L. E. (1989). Macario, Montevidisco, and Interactve Digame: developing interactive video for languagae instruction. In Smith, W. F. (ed.), Modern Tchnology in Foreign Language Education: Applications and Projects. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Co.
Gardner, D. and Miller, L. (2002). Establishing Self-Access from Theory to Practice. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Harding-Esch, E. (ed.). (1976). Self-Directed Learning and Autonomy. Cambridge: Department of Linguistics, University of Cambridge.
Hardisty, D. & Windeat, S. (1989). CALL. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy in Foreign Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
Holec. H. (1985). ‘On autonomy: some elementary concepts’. In P. Riley (ed>) Discourse and Learning. London: Longman, pp. 173-90.
Hatch, E. (ed.) (1978a). Second Language Acquisiton. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Hoogeveen (1995). Towards a new multimedia paradigm: is multimedia assisted instruction really effective? Ed-MEDIA 95, Graz, Austria.
Horwitz, E. (1987a). ‘Surveying student beliefs about language learning’ in Wenden and Rubin (eds.) 1987.
Illich, I. (1971) .Deschooling Society. London: Calder & Boyars.
Jarvis, H. (2005). Technology and Change in English Language Teaching (ELT). Asian EFL Journal, 7(4).
Kelly, G. (1955). The Psychology of Personal Constructs. New York: Norton.
Kelly, G. (1963). A Theory of Personality. New York: Norton.
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Krashen, S. (1981a.). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. London: Longman.
Little, D. (1991). Learner Autonomy1: Definitions, Issues and Problems. Dublin: Authentik.
Little, D. (1995). Learning as dialogue: the dependence of learner autonomy on teacher autonomy. System 23/2: 175-181.
Little, D. (Ed.). (1989). Self-Access Systems for Language Learning. Dublin: Authentik.
Long, M. (1983b). ‘Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation in the second language classroom” in M. Clarke and J. Handscombe (eds.). On TESOL’82: Pacific Perspectives on Language Learning Teaching. Washington D.C.: TESOL.
Long, M. (1983c). ‘Input and Second Language Acquisition Theory’. Paper presented at the Tenth University of Michigan Conference on Applied Linguistics.
Levy, M. (1997). Computer-assisted Language Learning: Context and Conceptualization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
MacNamara, J. (1972). ‘The cognitive basis of language learning in infants.’ Psychological Review 19:1-13.
Montali, J. and Lewandowski, L. (1996). Bimodal reading: benefits of a talking computer for a average and less skilled readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29(3):271-9.
Long, M. (1981). ‘Input, Interaction and Second Language Acquisition.’ Paper presented at the New York Academy of Sciences Conference on Native and Foreign Language Acquisition.
Long, M. and C. Sato. (1983). ‘Classroom foreigner talk discourse: forms and functions of teachers’ questions’ in Seliger and Long (eds.) 1983.
Lightbown, P. M. and Spada, N. (2002). How Languages are Learned. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Lightbown, P. (1983). ‘Exploring relationships between developmental and instructional sequences in L2 acquisition’ in Seliger and Long (eds.) 1983.
Little, D., D. Singleton, and W. Silvius (1984). Learning Second Languages in Ireland: Experience, Attitudes and Needs. Dublin: Trinity Colloge, Centre for Language and Communication Studies. Cited in Little and Singleton 1990.
Oxford, R. L. (1992). Language learning strategies in a mutshell: update and ESL suggestions. TESOL Journal 2 (2) 18-22.
Paris, S. G.. and Byrnes, J. Y. P. (1998). ‘The constructivist approach to self-regulation of learning in the classroom’. In B. J. Zimmerman and D. H. Schunk (eds.) Self-regulated Learning and Academic Achievement. New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 169-200.
Parker, K. and C. Chaudron. (1987). ‘The effects of linguistic simplifications and elaborative modifications on L2 comprehension’. University of Hawaii. Working Papers in ESL 6: 107-33.
Piaget, J. (1966). The Origins of Intelligence in Children. New York: International Universities Press.
Reid, Joy M.(2002). Learning Styles in the ESL/EFL Classroom. Beijing: Beijing Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Richards, J. C. and C. Lockhart (1994). Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, K. (2001). Movement in Language: Interactions and Architectures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 173.
Swain, M. (1985). ‘Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development’ in Gass and Madden (eds.) 1985.
Stevens, V. (1995). ‘Concordancing with language learners: why? when? what?’CAELL Journal, 6(2): 2-10.
Skehan, P. (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning (M). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 267-272.
Seliger, H. W. and Shohamy (1999, E.). Second Language Research Methods. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Snow, C. and M. Howfnagel-hohle. (1982). ‘School-age second language learners’ access to simplified linguistic input.’ Language Learning 32: 411-30.
Scrivener, J. (2002). Learning Teaching A Guide Book for English Language Teacher. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Underwood, J. (1984). Linguistics, Computers and the Language Teacher: a Communicative Approach. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Victori, M. and W. Lockhart (1995). Enhancing metacognition in self-directed language learning. System 23(2) 223-34.
Vygotsky, L. S.(1978). Mind in Society: the Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Wang, M. C. and Peverly, S. T. (1986). ‘The self-instructive process in classroom learning contexts’. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11:370-404.
Wagner-Gough, J. (1975). Comparative Studies in Second Language Learning. MA thesis, UCLA, California.
Warschauer, M., Turbee, L. and Roberts, B. (1996.) ‘Computer learning networks and student empowerment’, System, 24(1):1-14.
Warschauer, M. and Healey, D. (1998). Computers and language learning: an overview, Language Teaching 31: 51-7.
Warschauer, M. and Healey, D. (1998). ‘Computers and language learning: an overview’, Language Teaching, 31: 57-71.
Wenden, A. (1986a). ‘ What do second language learners know about their language learnng? A second look at retrospective accounts’. Applied Linguistics 7: 186-201.
Wenden, A. (1987A). ‘How to be a successful learner: insights and prescriptions from L2 learners’ in Wenden and Rubin (eds.)1987.
Widdowson, H. G. (1999). Aspects of Language Teaching. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Williams, M. & Burden, R. L. (2000). Psychology for Language Teachers. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaaching and Research Press.
陈晓,2004, 克拉森的 “输入”理论与英语教学, 北京第二外国语学院学报, 第六期。
董卫, 付黎旭,2003,背诵式输入在大学英语教学中的作用,外语界, 第四期。
何自然,2006,Cognitive Pragmatics --- Cognition in Verbal Communication. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
戴伟栋,何兆熊,2002, A New Concise Course on Linguistics for Student of English. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
华维芬, 2001,自主学习中心--- 一种新型的语言学习环境, 外语界,2001(5): 41-46.
华维芬, 2003, 关于建立自主学习中心的调查报告, 外语界, 2003 (6).
孔文, 李清华, 2002, 语言教学观与计算机辅助语言教学, 外语电化教学, 2002 (4): 34-38.
李炯英, 戴秀珍, 2001, 从 i+1 理论谈大学英语分级教学,山东外语教学, 2001 (1).
李志强, 2005, 计算机辅助语言学习环境下的自主语言学习, 硕士论文.
刘文忆,2005,基于建构主义和计算机多媒体的个性化英语教学,硕士论文.
梅德明,2003,Modern Linguistics A Concise Course. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
孙炳文, 叶朝成,2006, CALL 发展的历史描述及起理性再认识, 外语电化教学 4.
文秋芳,2004, Applied Linguistics--- Research Methods and Thesis Writing. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
吴刚,2001, 输入理论应用于大学英语教学的一次实验,外语界 2001(3).
严玲,2003, 从语言输入的角度看教师在多媒体教学中的角色,外语电化教学, 2003 (10): 44-46.