两套初中英语教材的适应性分析
|
摘要
近年来,英语教材的建设成为英语教学中备受关注的一个问题。教材是编者教学理念的体现,是教师实施英语教学活动的蓝本,它在完成教学内容和实现教学目标上发挥着重要作用。我国将逐步实现国家课程标准指导下的教材多样化政策。使教材的选择和使用逐步向地方、学校、学生的适应性方向发展。这就产生了一个新的问题:面对多套教材,教师如何科学地分析、评估教材的质量、以便对教材的选用做出合理、科学地判断?
本文选择了两套教材进行对比评估,这两套教材是由人民教育出版社和汤姆森学习出版集团合作改编的《新目标》以及由河北教育出版社和DC加拿大国际交流中心合编的《学英语》。作者首先回顾了Sheldon和Grant等人关于教材评估的理论,在此基础上,参照McDonough和Shaw提出的内部评估和外部评估的框架,设计了本研究的评估模式。研究分为内部评估和外部评估两个阶段。作者首先对教材的版面,目录,插图前言等方面做了外部评估,然后从教材的内容,即语言、教学方法、教材的设计等方面进行了内部评估。本评估通过调查报告,访谈等方法收集了数据和资料,调查报告主要以教师提供的数据为依据。由于新课标倡导使用任务型教学,在内部评估中,作者采用了Littlejohn对于“任务”一词的诠释,将其定义拓展为既包括交际型任务,也包括传统练习形式,并据此整理分析教材中主要的任务形式,比较两套教材对实施任务型教学的难易程度。
本研究分析和总结了通过访谈和问卷得出的数据,在分析数据的过程中采用定性分析和定量分析。分析结果表明两套教材都注重发展学生的总体语言能力,要求教师不仅培养学生的语言知识和语言技能,还要顾及到影响学生语言学习的其他因素,比如情感态度、学习策略和文化意识等。GFI能够很好的体现任务型教学的理念,使任务型教学在实践中便于实施。它的内容设计更符合学生的心理特征,提高了学生学习英语的兴趣。它倡导以学生为中心的教学理念,鼓励合作学习,发现学习,探究性学习。LE内容丰富,信息量大,扩展了学生的知识面。教材使用的语言真实,设计的活动内容生动有趣。通过教授LE,教师们改变了教学观念那就是新的教学理念必需用于实践教学。他们认识到:在教学中过多的关注词汇,语法,知识点是不利于教学发展的。LE采用了一种新的语言教学方法,即‘Project-Approach’所以在教学实践中不是很适合任务型教学。针对这些特点,作者提出了以后研究的方向。
English language teaching has undergone great reforms in China. Among others, changes in course books are especially conspicuous. As a major component in the implementation of an English course, course books are best seen as an essential factor contributing to the accomplishment of teaching content and the achievement of teaching objectives.
With the reform in curriculum putting into practice, Educational authorities gradually carry out the policy to diversify versions in textbooks under the guidance of National Curriculum Standards, which will improve the adaptation of textbooks to specific area, school and students. Therefore, a new problem has arisen among teachers. That is, facing to diversification in textbooks, what should teachers do to evaluate the quality of textbooks, to identify the strengths and weaknesses of textbooks and then make a sensible decision? Teachers and students need to be able to make informed and appropriate choices when selecting course books and supporting materials. So, choosing the right textbook is becoming more and more important at all levels of ELT schools. This has become a vital problem for teachers to be solved.
As Go For It and Learning English are both used in junior middle schools in Gansu, the author makes survey for them in order to find out the merits and demerits of the course in use. Go For It edited by people’s Education Press of China and Thomson Publishing Group of America, Learning English composed by Hebei Education Press and DC Canada International Communicative Center. The author reviews Sheldon, Grant’s theories about material evaluation. Inspired by English language teaching material evaluation, the author sets up a working model according to McDonough and Shaw for the present evaluation which precedes two processes, external evaluation and internal evaluation (taking teachers view into consideration) the advocacy of the Task-based Language Teaching Approach in New English Curriculum Standards puts forward a new demand and challenge to the teaching materials development. So in the internal evaluation, Littlejone’s definition of‘task’, which has been broaden to incorporate both communicative tasks and traditional exercises, is adopted to analyze the task types in them to have a close look at how much do they suit to the Task- Based Language Teaching Approach.
By means of documents, questionnaire, interview this paper produces a more realistic picture of reality. A number of qualitative data is analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively.
Both of the two editions attach importance to developing students’comprehensive language ability. Teachers guided by these two editions do not only lay stress on developing students’language knowledge and skills, but also attach importance to other aspects which can take effect in students’English learning, such as emotional attitudes, learning strategies and cultural awareness
The results shows: each edition has some strengths and weakness. All the teachers think that after using the textbook, learners’comprehensive ability, especially listening and speaking could be greatly promoted. GFI embodies the task- based language teaching approach. And the various task forms facilitate the language teaching in practice. Teachers admit LE consists of new form and abound content, interesting language and teaching activity. But the arrangement of grammar and vocabulary were not systematic and reasonable. LE offers a new pedagogy for language teaching:‘the project approach.’so in the teaching practice, it is not suitable to task-based language teaching approach very much.
本文选择了两套教材进行对比评估,这两套教材是由人民教育出版社和汤姆森学习出版集团合作改编的《新目标》以及由河北教育出版社和DC加拿大国际交流中心合编的《学英语》。作者首先回顾了Sheldon和Grant等人关于教材评估的理论,在此基础上,参照McDonough和Shaw提出的内部评估和外部评估的框架,设计了本研究的评估模式。研究分为内部评估和外部评估两个阶段。作者首先对教材的版面,目录,插图前言等方面做了外部评估,然后从教材的内容,即语言、教学方法、教材的设计等方面进行了内部评估。本评估通过调查报告,访谈等方法收集了数据和资料,调查报告主要以教师提供的数据为依据。由于新课标倡导使用任务型教学,在内部评估中,作者采用了Littlejohn对于“任务”一词的诠释,将其定义拓展为既包括交际型任务,也包括传统练习形式,并据此整理分析教材中主要的任务形式,比较两套教材对实施任务型教学的难易程度。
本研究分析和总结了通过访谈和问卷得出的数据,在分析数据的过程中采用定性分析和定量分析。分析结果表明两套教材都注重发展学生的总体语言能力,要求教师不仅培养学生的语言知识和语言技能,还要顾及到影响学生语言学习的其他因素,比如情感态度、学习策略和文化意识等。GFI能够很好的体现任务型教学的理念,使任务型教学在实践中便于实施。它的内容设计更符合学生的心理特征,提高了学生学习英语的兴趣。它倡导以学生为中心的教学理念,鼓励合作学习,发现学习,探究性学习。LE内容丰富,信息量大,扩展了学生的知识面。教材使用的语言真实,设计的活动内容生动有趣。通过教授LE,教师们改变了教学观念那就是新的教学理念必需用于实践教学。他们认识到:在教学中过多的关注词汇,语法,知识点是不利于教学发展的。LE采用了一种新的语言教学方法,即‘Project-Approach’所以在教学实践中不是很适合任务型教学。针对这些特点,作者提出了以后研究的方向。
English language teaching has undergone great reforms in China. Among others, changes in course books are especially conspicuous. As a major component in the implementation of an English course, course books are best seen as an essential factor contributing to the accomplishment of teaching content and the achievement of teaching objectives.
With the reform in curriculum putting into practice, Educational authorities gradually carry out the policy to diversify versions in textbooks under the guidance of National Curriculum Standards, which will improve the adaptation of textbooks to specific area, school and students. Therefore, a new problem has arisen among teachers. That is, facing to diversification in textbooks, what should teachers do to evaluate the quality of textbooks, to identify the strengths and weaknesses of textbooks and then make a sensible decision? Teachers and students need to be able to make informed and appropriate choices when selecting course books and supporting materials. So, choosing the right textbook is becoming more and more important at all levels of ELT schools. This has become a vital problem for teachers to be solved.
As Go For It and Learning English are both used in junior middle schools in Gansu, the author makes survey for them in order to find out the merits and demerits of the course in use. Go For It edited by people’s Education Press of China and Thomson Publishing Group of America, Learning English composed by Hebei Education Press and DC Canada International Communicative Center. The author reviews Sheldon, Grant’s theories about material evaluation. Inspired by English language teaching material evaluation, the author sets up a working model according to McDonough and Shaw for the present evaluation which precedes two processes, external evaluation and internal evaluation (taking teachers view into consideration) the advocacy of the Task-based Language Teaching Approach in New English Curriculum Standards puts forward a new demand and challenge to the teaching materials development. So in the internal evaluation, Littlejone’s definition of‘task’, which has been broaden to incorporate both communicative tasks and traditional exercises, is adopted to analyze the task types in them to have a close look at how much do they suit to the Task- Based Language Teaching Approach.
By means of documents, questionnaire, interview this paper produces a more realistic picture of reality. A number of qualitative data is analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively.
Both of the two editions attach importance to developing students’comprehensive language ability. Teachers guided by these two editions do not only lay stress on developing students’language knowledge and skills, but also attach importance to other aspects which can take effect in students’English learning, such as emotional attitudes, learning strategies and cultural awareness
The results shows: each edition has some strengths and weakness. All the teachers think that after using the textbook, learners’comprehensive ability, especially listening and speaking could be greatly promoted. GFI embodies the task- based language teaching approach. And the various task forms facilitate the language teaching in practice. Teachers admit LE consists of new form and abound content, interesting language and teaching activity. But the arrangement of grammar and vocabulary were not systematic and reasonable. LE offers a new pedagogy for language teaching:‘the project approach.’so in the teaching practice, it is not suitable to task-based language teaching approach very much.
引文
Breen, M.P. (1984). Processes in syllabus design. General English Syllabus Design [M]. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Chen Jun. (2007).The empirical study on the adaptability of the new textbook Go For It in Chongqing from learners’view[MA]. College of Foreign Languages Chongqing University.
Cheng Hongyue. (2003). Maximizing the role of course books--- A case study in secondary schools in Shanghai[MA]. Shanghai International Studies University.
Cunningsworth,A. (2002).Choosing Your Coursebook[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
David Williams. (1995). Choosing your Coursebook[M]. London: Heinenmann.
Dawn Garinger. (2002).Textbook selection for the ESL classroom Digest.
Ellis, R. (1998). Material development in language teaching[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fredricka L.Stoller., & Brodley Horn. (2006). Evaluation review in materials development Journal of English for Academic Purpose.
Ge Meng.(2006). A study on the development in senior English for China.[MA], Capital Normal University.
Grant, N. (1987). Making the most of your textbook[M]. New York: Longman Group UK Limited.
Grote, Patricia Mary. (1985). Textbook assessment in content area: A comparison of a multi-step Procedure with a single-step procedure[MA]. University of Mar;and
Hasan Ansary., & Esmat Babaii. (2002). Universal Characteristics of EFL/ESL Textbooks: A Step Towards Systematic Textbook Evaluation [M]
Hutchinson, T. & A. Waters. (1987). English for specific purposes: A learning-centred approach[M]. Combridge: Cambridge University Press.
Inal Bulent. (2006). Cousebook seclection process and some of the most important criteria to be taken into consideration in foreign language teaching. Journal of Arts and Sciences[J],5, page32-50.
Mayley, Alan. (2004). Material evaluation and design for language teaching. Proquest Education Journal[J],58/4, 394-396.
Littlejohn, A.(1998).The analysis of language teching materials:include the Trojan house. In B. Tomlinson (ED),Materials development in Language teaching , Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.PP.190-210
Meng Wanjing. (2002). Criteria for evaluating and adapting English language textbooks. Teaching English in China[J],5,60-72.
Miles, M.& Huberman, A. (1994). Quative data analysis(2 ed)[M]. Sage: Thousand Oaks(CA).
Nunan, D. (1991). Language teaching methodology[M]. Hertfordshire: Prentice Hall International (UK) Ltd.
Murphy, P,E.1993.Evaluating Language Learning Tasks in the Classroom. In Grookes&S.M.
grass(ED).Tasks in a pedagogical Context-Integrating theory and practice.Clevedon.Multilingunal Matters Ltd.pp.139-161 Mgrass(ED)
Sheldon, L.E. (1988). Evaluating ELT textbooks and materials. ESL Journal[J],7,338-346.
Stoller, Fredricka L (2006). Evaluation review in materials development Journal of English for Academic Purpose[J], 5.174-192
Tomlinson, B.(1998). Materials Development in Language Teaching[M]. Cambridge: CUP.
Hong Xu. (2004). Investigation criteria for assessing ESL Textbooks[MA] University of Alberta YangHong. (2006). An Evaluation Plan For A Set Of General English Course Books. Teaching English in China [J],12,73-78.
ZhaoYong.,& ZhengShutang. (2005). A new exploration in the evaluation of college English Textbooks. Chinese language teaching[J],28/4,78-87.
ZhaoFang.(2005).Textbook evaluation for business teaching in English---A study of an original accounting textbook used in BBA class in Guang Dong University of foreign studies[MA]. Guangdong University of ForeignStudies.
Zhou Mei.(2004). Material evaluation: task design in some subject-based ESL textbooks published in China [MA]. Chongqing University
程晓堂,2002,英语教材分析与设计[M],上海:外语教学与研究出版社。
陈正霞,2006,对人教社新版高中英语教材的评价[MA],华中师范大学。
邓立言,1996,中小学教材建设的现状与任务[J],《人民教育》第10期,27-29。
冯欣,2007,基于Cunningworth’评估体系的航海英语阅读教材分析[MA],大连海事大学。
高凌飚,2000,义务教育教材分析评估方案[J],《教育科学研究》第5期,25-33。
高霞,2002,科学探究在中美两国小学科学教材中体现的比较研究[MA],南京师范大学。
雷小兰,2006,以“任务法”为基础的教材分析与对比研究[MA],西北工业大学。
李劫全,2005,论英语课程教材评估—《交际英语教程核心课程》[MA],广西大学。
林桂芬, 2007,《新标准英语·初中起点》教材的使用调查研究[MA],广西师范大学。
刘艳萍,2005,二十一世纪广西大学使用的三种《大学英语》教程大纲设计对比研究,广西大学。
鲁红霞,2007,国内外英语教材评价研究,《基础教育外语教学研究》第4期,20-24。
罗晓燕,2007,新课程标准下中学英语教学改革的思考[J],《中小学实验与装备》第1期,35-36。
马纳琴,2006,专业英语教材评估的必要性及教材的使用前评估[J],《甘肃政法成人教育学院学报》第6期,163-165。
容丽春,2006,《新标准英语》(初一)的分析与评估[MA],广西师范大学。
盛霏,2005,上海市高中英语统编教材与牛津教材的比较研究[MA],华东师范大学。
孙莺,2002,教材评估—以重庆大学采用的三种市场营销专业英语教材为例[MA],对外经济贸易大学。
王艳娥,陈海蛟,2003,英语教材评估标准述评[J],《齐齐哈尔大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》第5期,45-47。
王金土,高远振,2004,人教版高中英语新教材评介[J],《中小学教材教学》第11期,12-14。
许峰,2004,英语教材评估研究:回顾与前瞻[J],《西北工业大学学报(社会科学版)》第3期, 35-38。
徐海波,2003,关于评估中国大学英语教材的建议[J],《西南农业大学学报(社会科学版)》第3期,75-78。
杨国颖,2006, NSEFC高中英语教材使用状况调查研究[MA],东北师范大学。
杨淑清,2007,初中英语教材“数与代数”领域的比较研究——北师版教材与新加坡教材[MA],西北师范大学。
杨雪,2006,对《义务教育课程标准英语实验教科书Go for it》使用后评价的调查研究[MA],东北师范大学。
张鹤,国晓华,2005,从教材理论发展的三个方面看教材评价[J],《当代教育论坛》第11期,45-46。
赵勇,郑树棠,2006,几个国外英语教材评估体系的理论分析——兼谈对中国大学英语教材评估的启示[J],《外语教学》第5期,39-45。
张正东,2005,关于多种英语教材的思考[J],《基础教育教学与研究》第11期,20-24。
朱敏,2004,大学英语(全新版)教材评价[MA],广西师范大学。
Chen Jun. (2007).The empirical study on the adaptability of the new textbook Go For It in Chongqing from learners’view[MA]. College of Foreign Languages Chongqing University.
Cheng Hongyue. (2003). Maximizing the role of course books--- A case study in secondary schools in Shanghai[MA]. Shanghai International Studies University.
Cunningsworth,A. (2002).Choosing Your Coursebook[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
David Williams. (1995). Choosing your Coursebook[M]. London: Heinenmann.
Dawn Garinger. (2002).Textbook selection for the ESL classroom Digest.
Ellis, R. (1998). Material development in language teaching[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fredricka L.Stoller., & Brodley Horn. (2006). Evaluation review in materials development Journal of English for Academic Purpose.
Ge Meng.(2006). A study on the development in senior English for China.[MA], Capital Normal University.
Grant, N. (1987). Making the most of your textbook[M]. New York: Longman Group UK Limited.
Grote, Patricia Mary. (1985). Textbook assessment in content area: A comparison of a multi-step Procedure with a single-step procedure[MA]. University of Mar;and
Hasan Ansary., & Esmat Babaii. (2002). Universal Characteristics of EFL/ESL Textbooks: A Step Towards Systematic Textbook Evaluation [M]
Hutchinson, T. & A. Waters. (1987). English for specific purposes: A learning-centred approach[M]. Combridge: Cambridge University Press.
Inal Bulent. (2006). Cousebook seclection process and some of the most important criteria to be taken into consideration in foreign language teaching. Journal of Arts and Sciences[J],5, page32-50.
Mayley, Alan. (2004). Material evaluation and design for language teaching. Proquest Education Journal[J],58/4, 394-396.
Littlejohn, A.(1998).The analysis of language teching materials:include the Trojan house. In B. Tomlinson (ED),Materials development in Language teaching , Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.PP.190-210
Meng Wanjing. (2002). Criteria for evaluating and adapting English language textbooks. Teaching English in China[J],5,60-72.
Miles, M.& Huberman, A. (1994). Quative data analysis(2 ed)[M]. Sage: Thousand Oaks(CA).
Nunan, D. (1991). Language teaching methodology[M]. Hertfordshire: Prentice Hall International (UK) Ltd.
Murphy, P,E.1993.Evaluating Language Learning Tasks in the Classroom. In Grookes&S.M.
grass(ED).Tasks in a pedagogical Context-Integrating theory and practice.Clevedon.Multilingunal Matters Ltd.pp.139-161 Mgrass(ED)
Sheldon, L.E. (1988). Evaluating ELT textbooks and materials. ESL Journal[J],7,338-346.
Stoller, Fredricka L (2006). Evaluation review in materials development Journal of English for Academic Purpose[J], 5.174-192
Tomlinson, B.(1998). Materials Development in Language Teaching[M]. Cambridge: CUP.
Hong Xu. (2004). Investigation criteria for assessing ESL Textbooks[MA] University of Alberta YangHong. (2006). An Evaluation Plan For A Set Of General English Course Books. Teaching English in China [J],12,73-78.
ZhaoYong.,& ZhengShutang. (2005). A new exploration in the evaluation of college English Textbooks. Chinese language teaching[J],28/4,78-87.
ZhaoFang.(2005).Textbook evaluation for business teaching in English---A study of an original accounting textbook used in BBA class in Guang Dong University of foreign studies[MA]. Guangdong University of ForeignStudies.
Zhou Mei.(2004). Material evaluation: task design in some subject-based ESL textbooks published in China [MA]. Chongqing University
程晓堂,2002,英语教材分析与设计[M],上海:外语教学与研究出版社。
陈正霞,2006,对人教社新版高中英语教材的评价[MA],华中师范大学。
邓立言,1996,中小学教材建设的现状与任务[J],《人民教育》第10期,27-29。
冯欣,2007,基于Cunningworth’评估体系的航海英语阅读教材分析[MA],大连海事大学。
高凌飚,2000,义务教育教材分析评估方案[J],《教育科学研究》第5期,25-33。
高霞,2002,科学探究在中美两国小学科学教材中体现的比较研究[MA],南京师范大学。
雷小兰,2006,以“任务法”为基础的教材分析与对比研究[MA],西北工业大学。
李劫全,2005,论英语课程教材评估—《交际英语教程核心课程》[MA],广西大学。
林桂芬, 2007,《新标准英语·初中起点》教材的使用调查研究[MA],广西师范大学。
刘艳萍,2005,二十一世纪广西大学使用的三种《大学英语》教程大纲设计对比研究,广西大学。
鲁红霞,2007,国内外英语教材评价研究,《基础教育外语教学研究》第4期,20-24。
罗晓燕,2007,新课程标准下中学英语教学改革的思考[J],《中小学实验与装备》第1期,35-36。
马纳琴,2006,专业英语教材评估的必要性及教材的使用前评估[J],《甘肃政法成人教育学院学报》第6期,163-165。
容丽春,2006,《新标准英语》(初一)的分析与评估[MA],广西师范大学。
盛霏,2005,上海市高中英语统编教材与牛津教材的比较研究[MA],华东师范大学。
孙莺,2002,教材评估—以重庆大学采用的三种市场营销专业英语教材为例[MA],对外经济贸易大学。
王艳娥,陈海蛟,2003,英语教材评估标准述评[J],《齐齐哈尔大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》第5期,45-47。
王金土,高远振,2004,人教版高中英语新教材评介[J],《中小学教材教学》第11期,12-14。
许峰,2004,英语教材评估研究:回顾与前瞻[J],《西北工业大学学报(社会科学版)》第3期, 35-38。
徐海波,2003,关于评估中国大学英语教材的建议[J],《西南农业大学学报(社会科学版)》第3期,75-78。
杨国颖,2006, NSEFC高中英语教材使用状况调查研究[MA],东北师范大学。
杨淑清,2007,初中英语教材“数与代数”领域的比较研究——北师版教材与新加坡教材[MA],西北师范大学。
杨雪,2006,对《义务教育课程标准英语实验教科书Go for it》使用后评价的调查研究[MA],东北师范大学。
张鹤,国晓华,2005,从教材理论发展的三个方面看教材评价[J],《当代教育论坛》第11期,45-46。
赵勇,郑树棠,2006,几个国外英语教材评估体系的理论分析——兼谈对中国大学英语教材评估的启示[J],《外语教学》第5期,39-45。
张正东,2005,关于多种英语教材的思考[J],《基础教育教学与研究》第11期,20-24。
朱敏,2004,大学英语(全新版)教材评价[MA],广西师范大学。