U148 Archive

Markdown archive served by Next.js

烛光----Candlelight

来源: BlogBus 原始链接: http://www.blogbus.com:80/blogbus/blog/archive.php?id=2663 存档链接: https://web.archive.org/web/20050112164425id_/http://www.blogbus.com:80/blogbus/blog/archive.php?id=2663

烛光----Candlelight 1970/01/02 到 2004/02/27 小学英语教师教学日志 Task-Based Methodology and Sociocultural Theory

2004-02-27 17:17 by Bobby Nunn Current teaching and research have increasingly focused on cognitive psychological processes through communicative language teaching and task-based language learning and teaching (TBLT). At the same time, sociocultural theory (SCT), with its discourse oriented nature, has been creeping into the literature. Looking at the recent work of the lead players in SLA (e.g., Ellis 1999, Swain 2000) one can't help but notice the increasingly emerging sociocultural slant. These views are largely underpinned by qualitative and discursive oriented Vygotskian theory. Over the past decade or so, a number of TBLT methodologies have been developed. Section I defines tasks, gives three methodological overviews, and discusses research and problems in TBLT. The central focus of SCT is learners using language in tasks. Section II attempts to link TBLT and SCT through their commonalties with regard to context, language and tasks for analysis, and focus on meaning. Section III discusses the rationale for SCT and introduces five components: mediation, activity theory, private speech, regulation, and the zone of proximal development. It is argued that these components are useful for language and discourse in general and are highly compatible with TBLT to analyze teachers and learners under tasks in classroom activity. Finally Section IV discusses some research from the SCT perspective on teacher-student/classroom discourse, learner-learner discourse, and findings with respect to tasks. The overriding purpose is to provide a number of positions from which language teachers, curriculum designers, and researchers can use the information here to launch from and to introduce a new and additional means from which to analyze and explain what participants under tasks do. Section I What is a task? Of the varying definitions of task that exist, Kumaravadivelu (1993) finds Candlin's the most definitive: One of a set of differentiated, sequencable, problem-posing activities involving learners' cognitive and communicative procedures applied to existing and new knowledge in the collective exploration and pursuance of foreseen or emergent goals within a social milieu. (p. 71) Three Task Methodologies A variety of task methodologies exists. Here, I review three, Loschky and Bley-Vroman (1993), Crookes and Long's Focus on Form (FonF) (1993), and Breen & Candlin's Process Syllabus (1980), in an order in which they align along Nunan's (1989) continuum for understanding TBLT methodologies and their underlying theories to SLA. This moves from classroom structured tasks which predict and predetermine what the learner will do in the class-room to real-world (rehearsal) oriented tasks which have a tendency towards unpredictable emergent structures that evolve in the classroom. Structure Oriented Tasks. Loschky and Bley-Vroman (1993, cited in Williams & Doughty, 1998; Skeehan, 1998) propose that three characteristic levels of task design can be used to constrain learners production of specific linguistic structures to varying degrees: Task Naturalness: A grammatical construction may arise, but the task can be performed without it (e.g., describing the steps in an experiment, past tense is likely to evolve). Task Utility: The structure is not necessary, but the task is easier with structure (e.g., in judging any kind of contest for awards, adjectives are almost necessary, thus bordering on essentialness). Task Essentialness: The task cannot be performed without the structure. Other increasingly explicit devices may be needed to attract learner attention. Loschky and Bley-Vroman optimistically argue that tasks should be designed to meet the third criterion without compromising meaning. This has a highly pedagogic rationale. They note that essential tasks are difficult to conceive of, but may be more easily incorporated into comprehension tasks. Production tasks may rarely go beyond fostering task naturalness or task utility. In the most extreme case, the task designer predetermines the meaning that learners will negotiate. Although, many of the techniques for enhancing the input (e.g. visual highlighting, underlining, and auditory-intonational focus) still remain relatively implicit. Focus on Form. Long's (1985, Crookes & Long, 1993) version of TBLT is the strongest in terms of referencing tasks to the real world. With such a high emphasis on meaning learners may lose sight of grammatical forms. Long introduced FonF (focus on form) in order to resolve this issue. There are two versions of FonF, proactive and reactive (Williams & Doughty, 1998). Proactive FonF emphasizes tasks that are designed in advance to ensure that opportunities for learners to use forms that they have trouble will arise while communicating a message. Whereas reactive FonF posits that the teacher has tasks already prepared to bring the learners' attention to problematic forms when pervasive errors arise. Long's version emphasizes reactive FonF. He proposes the following five-stage procedure in developing a task-based language program: A requisite needs analysis to identify real-world target tasks for task selection. Selection and classification of target tasks into types. Pedagogical tasks are derived from the bank of generalized task-types and sequenced forming the syllabus. Task complexity/difficulty is determined for grading and sequencing through the number of steps, solutions, participants, and distinguishing features of tasks (see Robinson, 2001). Task-based criterion referenced tests are used to evaluate achievement. Meaning in relation to the real world plays a much more significant role in this methodology. Though, it places negotiation at the level of generalized classroom tasks, class work is interrupted only briefly when needs for FonF arise. Kumaravadivelu (1993) views this as a pedagogic rationale because tasks are still not directly related to communicative performance in the outside world. Skeehan (1998) claims that, in practice, derivation and classification of tasks is difficult to do. If content taken to an extreme is the central theme in its rationale, then another criticism is that it could serve as training in limited language use and competence, rather than education. Process Syllabus. The resources and materials needed for course design in Breen and Candlin's (1980, cited in Crookes & Long, 1993) version of TBLT consists of: Making general decisions about classroom language learning (who needs to learn what, how they prefer to learn it, when, with whom and so on). Alternative procedures for making those decisions (the basis for an eventual 'working contract' between teachers and learners). Alternative activities, such as teacher-led instruction, group work, and laboratory use. Alternative tasks, i.e. a bank of pedagogic tasks students may select from to realize the 'activities'. Here, individual learning preferences and processes become the focus of instruction. Kumaravadivelu (1993) calls this a psycho-social rationale having tasks that take into consideration cognitive, expressive and social parameters negotiated among the participants of the mini-society of the classroom. This most closely follows a Vygotskian framework by determining what was learned and the syllabus retrospectively , rather than a priori. This type of syllabus design incorporates negotiation not only of that which takes place inside task activity, but also what, with whom, how, in what participant structure, and what task is to be learned. Negotiation of meaning is placed above the level of classroom tasks and activities. The main criticism is that it may require learners who already have a high degree of proficiency in the language in order to co-manage their own learning. These frameworks provide starting points from which to choose and develop activities for classroom instruction. Structure oriented tasks might be developed for a linguistically based syllabus or for brief FonF activities necessary in a primarily meaning-focused/authentic curriculum. Long's FonF leans more in the direction of ESP courses where tasks can be derived more directly from the real-world tasks that learners will eventually have to do. The process syllabus would probably work with either an ESP or an English for general purposes course. However, it may require some higher level degree of linguistic control, self-control, and participation on the part of the learners for more explicit co-management of classroom activities and their own learning trajectories. Task-Based Research A brief review of research in TBLT illustrates some of the categorical distinctions that have been made and their implications for language instruction, the language produced, and opportunities for negotiation of meaning. One-way vs. two-way tasks. Long (1981, cited in Nunan, 1991) found that two-way tasks (in which all students in a group discussion had unique information to contribute) stimulated significantly more modified interactions than one-way tasks (that is, in which one member of the group possessed all the relevant information). Gass and Varonis (1985, cited in Gass, 1997) found no significant differences in the output produced by the two task types. Convergent vs. divergent. Duff (1986 cited in Gass, 1997) found that convergent problem-solving tasks prompted significant interactional and discoursal differences with more and shorter turns than divergent debating tasks (cited in Nunan, 1989). They produce different types of language. Shared vs. single source of information. Pica, Holliday, Lewis, Berducci, and Newman (1991, cited in Gass, 1997) found that negotiation is greater when a single individual holds all the information needed for a resolution of a task as opposed to being shared. Teacher presence. Pica, Young, and Doughty (1987, cited in Gass, 1997) found many more examples of interactional exchange when the teacher was not present than elicited when present. Effects of negotiation. Aston (1986 cited in Gass, 1997) shows that tasks that promote negotiation often result in language that is frustrating to produce and as a result error-laden. These hypotheses and research have made a useful beginning in creating a framework for the design and study of tasks. This list of characteristics and contrasting sets, by no means exhaustive, describes some of the types of potential negotiation in tasks. They are also useful for task design thinking processes. However, the mixed and conflicting results of the research make it difficult to draw conclusions in linking negotiation of meaning to language acquisition. It's still difficult to determine whether these distinctions will lead to greater opportunities for negotiation of meaning. Another criticism also is that overall TBLT research has tended to focus on the end result of language as a product, rather than a process. In this sense TBLT is still highly focused on the behavioral aspects of tasks as control devices for learners in the classroom. Problems with TBLT yet to be solved Remaining problems for TBLT concern where tasks begin and end, the number of task-types, the number of levels, and what is transferred from one generalized task to the next. Once tasks are generalized how much can we expect to transfer from one type to another? How are task difficulty and task complexity to be measured? Also synchronizing the teacher's and learners' agendas is still problematic. In essence, this is what TBLT has been trying to do, synchronize learner internal syllabus' and teaching to acquire higher levels of language faster. The methods presented here, with the exception of the Process Syllabus, remain pedagogic in their rationale and behaviorist in terms of tasks designed for a hypothetical learner. Developing a task-based approach will be dependent upon predictable factors such as institutional demands and objectives, class sizes, and probable real world activities that learners will someday do. Developing this approach will also be dependent upon unpredictable factors which include maturational levels, learner factors, learner goals, and a host of other factors. As Nunan (1989) claims, it might well be that it is the learners who impose their own automatic order on the way things play out in the classroom. With this in mind, I shall turn to SCT which provides a means of analysis to tie together those factors that are predictable and designable with those that are more elusive, hidden, and unpredictable in an attempt to create a more coherent whole. Section II Linking TBLT and Sociocultural Theory TBLT and SCT might be historically connected through the early work in discourse analysis with Goffman's approach to interaction or conversation analysis associated with Schegloff, Sacks, and Hatch. These kinds of analyses reveal the task-focused nature of jointly oriented, co-constructed participants in talk (Crookes, 1993, p. 1; Heritage, 1997, p. 166-167; Frawley, 1997, p. 181). In reading Vygotsky and literature on SCT it becomes clear that it has many points of connection and compatibility with TBLT. Three points TBLT and SCT share include: an attempt to re-contextualize the classroom, the focus of activity or tasks as a place for studying and developing language, and a focus on meaning. Schooling tends to decontextualize meaning and make language learning and use abstract in the classroom. For Vygotsky, meaning is determined by the relationship between the structure and interpretation of language and the context in which they appear (Wertsch, 1985). In the same vein, tasks are used to re-contextualize the classroom for more meaning making as it happens in the real world. While SCT contextualizes the analysis. The combination of tasks and language activity made sense for Vygotsky. By means of research he saw that language and action converged to function in the goal oriented activity of a task. TBLT attempts to shift the language teaching focus from a product to a process approach. In SLA, products consist of "what" is to be learned, the learning and acquisition of discrete grammar in isolation. Processes consist of "how" or "the way" things are learned, learning through participation and the use of language in tasks. This is consistent with Vygotsky's push for a "need to concentrate not on the product of development but on the very process by which higher forms are established" (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 64). That is, the activity under which language is built up. Vygotsky disagreed with focusing on language form stripped from its meaning (Wertsch, 1985, p. 88). In other words, his ideas have a strong congruence with tasks which emphasize combining language form with its meaning. This is consistent with TBLT's emphasis on meaning through the use of language. It may be that TBLT and SCT can be mutually supportive and beneficial for research, analysis, and instruction of learners in SLA. Section III In the following section, the rationale for SCT and its five components, mediation, activity theory, private speech, regulation, and the zone of proximal development, are briefly covered. The Sociocultural Rationale The dominant psychological theories underlying SLA have been behaviorist which focus on the formation of language habits, and cognitive which focus on a single hypothetical learner's internal processing and transmission of input and output. Cognitive perspectives on learning tend to promote a focus on the non-personal knowledge, skills, and activities of a person. Sociocultural theories are shifting from these behaviorist and cognitivist psychological approaches. SCT attempts to capture the context, action, and motives of language events between individuals who are simultaneously social and cognitive. Analysis from social perspectives seems as though it would eclipse the person, but on the contrary it makes a very explicit focus on the individual within a community and the world (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Traditional dichotomies are useful in highlighting specific aspects of process, however, their focus on surface features, rather than fundamental processes, limits their ability to provide clean classificatory categories in terms of meaning, knowing, or learning (Wenger, 1998). Mediation The central concept for Vygotsky and SCT is the mediation of human behavior (i.e. activity, labor, what we do, our work in the classroom) with tools and sign systems -- most importantly language. Vygotsky saw tools and language as the evolving products of the forward march of human history and its cultural development. We use these historically developed cultural artifacts, tools and language, to mediate relationships with ourselves, others, objects, and the world. The Vygotskian perspective makes human communication through the use of the mediation of language the central object of analysis rather than language as a system, like a grammar, abstracted from use. Vygotsky saw that external social speech was internalized through mediation (Vygotsky, 1978). In this way Vygotsky and SCT link society to mind through mediation. Language as a tool of the mind bridges the individual understanding of our selves and particular contexts and situations within the world. Activity Theory Activity theory provides a framework to analyze what learners do in interaction with an aim to understand their goals through action and motives through activity. It analyzes system in activity from the broad perspective of the larger social system through the eyes of the member or participants co-constructing the activity. The activity practitioner must then simultaneously focus on the activity system (learner or learners) they study through tasks and what transpires around that activity system. Activity theory raises the question "what is the individual or group doing in a particular situation?" (Wertsch, 1985, p. 211). Rather than focusing on skills, concepts, information-processing, units, or reflexes, activity theory can provide a response through analysis at the level of: 1) activity , 2) action , and 3) operations . At the global level is activity which is the frame or context in which something occurs. The second level is goal-directed action . It tells us "what" must be done to get from A to B and through this implies a motive. The context or activity cannot inform us of the reasons and outcomes that develop, the action that happens in some outcome. Thus, activity and action are distinguished. The third level is operations, which describe "how" something is done. This is associated with "the concrete conditions under which the action is carried out" (Wertsch, 1985, p. 202-204). Thus activity relates to context (e.g. in a classroom, something about a language), action relates to goals (e.g., to get a good grade, to improve grammar, to satisfy the teacher etc.), and operations relate to conditions (e.g., teacher-fronted, in pairs, the performed responses to the task). Inner Speech or Private Speech and Private Writing: The Act of Self-Mediation Vygotsky referred to the internalization of external forms of dialogic communication as inner-speech. What Piaget termed egocentric speech, speech that children use but eventually disappears, Vygotsky found to go "underground" or become internalized processes of thought (Vygotsky, 1986). He also found that when speech was not permitted, children were unable to accomplish a given task (Vygotsky, 1978). According to Vygotsky, our internal mental ability to use and manipulate language is result of mediation through language. He found that when confronted with tasks beyond the ZPD, children invoked private speech, the convergence of thought and language, in seeking and planning the solution to a task (Vygotsky, 1986). Inner-speech (now also termed private-speech, and private-writing), is somewhat analogous to think-aloud tasks or protocol. This is seen as an insight to strategies and processes learners use to complete a task. Donato (1994) defines inner-speech as, "speech to oneself, which overtly expresses the requisite actions to successfully complete a task, is a means of self-guidance in carrying out an activity beyond one's current competence" (p. 48). It now serves as an element which evidences various regulatory functions between speakers in tasks and exposes internal processes with insight to language use. Regulation Wertsch's (1985) four levels of regulation are important for understanding and analyzing a wide variety of interaction, mediation, and relationships between the self, expert-novice, teacher-learner, peer interaction, and group interaction under task and problem-solving activities. These have been adapted in several studies such as Aljaafreh and Lantolf (1994), McCafferty (1994), and Nassaji and Swain (2000). (1) Object-regulation indicates a person directly controlled by the environment. It represents strategic use of the nature of the task itself, evidenced through private speech or private writing. Describing and naming certain aspects of the action and environment characterizes attempts to plan and direct action. To paraphrase Wertsch (1985), the teacher may attempt to direct the language learner through strategic steps, but the learner's understanding of the objects and goal-directed action is so limited that the learner may not interpret the teachers' talk. (2) In other-regulation a person is primarily controlled by another person. Speech of this sort consists of metacomments which function not as conversation, but something like teacher-talk (e.g., "Open your books" "Turn to page 25") The second variety are self-directed questions. These are called "other-regulation" because learners resort to a dialogue like forms for seeking self-guidance reminiscent of the ways children engage with their mothers. At this stage the learner begins participate successfully in the task setting, but the learners' understanding of the task situation is still far from being in complete agreement with the teacher's (Wertsch, 1985). (3) In self-other-regulation a person begins to take on more of the control of his own actions. The teacher no longer has to specify all the steps that must be followed for the learner to interpret a directions because the learner can now do much more on his own (Wertsch, 1985). (4) Self-regulation is when a subject has suddenly understood, mastered, or gained complete control and ability to function independently. It is an ability to focus attention on the abstract goal while ignoring task-irrelevant features. The learner takes over complete responsibility for carrying out the goal-directed task. The Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) The site where the language is shared and internalized through mediation is the 'zone of proximal development' defined by Vygotsky as follows: It is the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers. (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86) Vygotsky's law makes claims about instruction and learning. The ZPD places instruction on the part of the teacher as assisting and guiding learner development and intellectual possibilities in collaborative activities. Thus for Vygotsky "the only 'good learning' is that which is in advance of development" (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 89). Ohta (2000) claims that "the construct of the ZPD specifies that development cannot occur if too much assistance is provided or if a task is too easy" (p. 52). Aljaafreh and Lantolf (1994) claim that mediation needs to be contingent. This means teachers need to balance the giving and withholding of guidance and assistance, on-line, in accordance with students' progression through a task. This gives rise to the term prolepsis. According to Anton (1999) prolepsis leads participants in the interaction to reach an understanding of each other's view of problem solving and solution. According to Throne (2000) Krashen's notion of comprehensible input (i + 1) which concerns an autonomous passive learner listening for the next level of linguistic input, should not be equated with the ZPD which concerns people working together in the joint accomplishment of specific tasks developing personal ability. The ZPD is useful in both a linguistic and a task-based system because it indicates what the learner can or can't do with or without assistance. Section IV Research in SCT Teacher-Student and Classroom Discourse Hall (1995) investigated the discursive practices of a Spanish high-school teacher on his students. While this teacher was judged to be knowledgeable, highly proficient, and providing a linguistically rich environment full of comprehensible input similar to other foreign language class-rooms, Hall's analysis shows that the nature of the instructor's discourse was not proleptic. Thus, instruction limited student opportunities to facilitate interactional devlelopment (Hall, 1995). She finds that the dominating IRE (initiation, response, follow-up/evaluation) format of class discussion and the teacher's agenda in tasks constrained opportunities for students to engage in longer, more complex discursive patterns. She found that the IRE and teacher agenda also constrained classroom discussion to the linking of words and repetition of parts or all of previous utterances, rather than developing student knowledge and expansion of topic relevance, and expansion and coherence across utterances (Hall, 1995). Anton (1999) examines the discourse of two high-school teachers, one of French and one of Italian, in formal grammar lessons. She focuses on the degree to which classrooms are made either teacher-centered or learner-centered through the discourse. Anton (1999) found that proleptic instruction and the dialogic nature of a high-school French instructor increased learner involvement in negotiation of meaning, linguistic form, and participation in classroom activity. Analysis of the discourse revealed how the dialogic style of the instructor recruited student investment in the lessons, creating joint-ownership of the classroom activity. Thus, a learning-centered environment was created. In the case of a high-school Italian instructor, Anton (1999) found that learner engagement and negotiation of meaning are dramatically reduced when instruction is not proleptic. That is when instruction lacks scaffolding in the ZPD. This includes communicative moves by the instructor in the use of directives, assisting questions, open ended questions, pauses, gestures, opportunities to bid for the floor. Learner-Learner Discourse -- Peer Mediated Research In a vocabulary acquisition study of university students of English, mainly from East and Southeast Asian nations, in an intensive English program, R. Ellis and He (1999) found that the dialogic construction in peer interaction provided far more opportunities for learners to learn new words than did monologically constructed formats. They believe their results agree with Lantolf and Pavlenko (1995) who claim that "learning hinges not so much on richness of input, but crucially on the choices made by individuals as responsible agents with dispositions to think and act in certain ways rooted in their discursive histories" (p. 116). The peer dialogic groups far outscored the monological groups. This didn't link negotiation of meaning to acquisition, but points to the greater opportunities for use, and negotiation of meaning, that more dialogically based interaction creates and provides. Through the work of Holunga (1994), Swain (2000) examines students who were taught to verbalize metacognitive strategies (i.e. language used for oneself to focus attention, predict, plan, externalize and test hypotheses about language, supply solutions, and evaluate) as they worked through a task (a kind of inner-speech). This group of students far outperformed other groups given the same instruction except for respect to metacognitive strategies. The second group was taught metacognitive strategies, but not to verbalize them during the task. The third group was not taught metacogintive strategies. Task Related Research Tasks and Methodology Roebuck notes that sociocultural pedagogy and sociocultural methodology differ. One technique Vygotsky used to study development, was to introduce tasks which exceeded the subjects knowledge abilities to study the rudimentary beginnings of new skills (1978). Pedagogical tasks are chosen because they lie within the learners' ZPD while tasks on the fringe of the learners' zone and beyond can be chosen to discover how people respond to problems and difficulties and integrate other signs and tools into their tasks (Roebuck, 2000). The friction between tasks and individuals is often what is considered bad data and often discarded. In the case of De Geurrero and Villamil (1994), several recordings were eliminated because participants did not comply with task procedures. In some cases bad data may be more revealing. Re-Defining Tasks Donato (1994, p. 36) states that "tasks cannot be externally defined or classified on the basis of specific external task features." Rather, tasks are in fact internally constructed through the moment-to-moment verbal interactions of the learners during actual performance. Roebuck (2000) claims it is important to distinguish between tasks and activities as Coughlan and Duff (1994) define them: A task is, we propose, a kind of behavioral blueprint provided to subjects in order to elicit linguistic data. An activity, by comparison, comprises the behavior that is actually produced when an individual (or group) performs a task. (p. 175) Coughlan and Duff (1994) argue that experimentally elicited behavior is neither constant nor controllable because it is an instantiation of activity between the participants. That is, during a task, roles of expert-novice can shift and the nature of the task can vary between being a task for natural or not unnatural communication. Tasks are imposed on learners to teach pre-determined agendas while activity is how the learners -- as agents -- construct the task to the final outcome. Task Design In a teacher-fronted translation task that would not be considered state-of-the-art, Ohta (2000) finds that learners push forward with a difficult grammatical construction through their own persistence and investment working as peers to go beyond the bounds of the task creating their own language learning activity. The productivity of learner interaction cannot necessarily be determined by looking at task design, but tasks themselves may be transformed as each learner applies him or herself in instantiation of a unique activity (Coughlan & Duff, 1994). Orientation in Tasks Appel and Lantolf (1994) defined orientation as the way individuals view an object or a task, the kind of goals they establish relative to the task, and the plans and means they devise to carry the task to its completion. Orientation can then influence personal strategies so different individuals can potentially have different personal strategies even when under the same instructions. Donato (2000) argues teachers need to focus more on students' orientation that are 'emergent interactions' based on participants' multiple goals during the conduct of classroom tasks rather than independent measures of the accumulation of knowledge. Re-Orientation Wang (1996) showed that classroom group work is best conceived as internal goal-directed actions of the students rather than passive adherence to external task demands. This study showed how different groups continually altered their orientations to each other and to the task, as they progressed through it, based on their goals, desires, and motivations. Through analysis of non-native speakers in a text recall task Roebuck (2000) contends that learners' orientations, what they think a task is about, cannot be determined a priori. In her study learners often reinterpret the meaning and intent of a task according to what they think the task is about and in relation to what counts as successful completion for themselves while engaged in the task on-line. Learners in Roebuck's (2000) text recall task exhibited various orientations to the task which included attempts to memorize the text, summarize it, comprehend it, distance themselves from the content of their writing, and reframe the task when the self was in danger of losing face. One learner reformatted the task putting himself on the same level as the researcher. Roebuck defines activity as how learners-as agents-construct and make the task their own. She concludes that researchers need to discover the subjects' activity rather attempt to predict their unpredictable complex activity (Roebuck, 2000). Problems for Task-Based Learning R. Ellis (1999, cited in Lantolf, 2000b) believes that the sociocultural perspective problematizes task-based learning because it strips the ability to grade tasks independently from an individual learners' ZPD. Lantolf (2000b) claims the perspective of tasks as behavior eliciting devices privileges language acquisition over learner agency. He points out that, if learners do not exhibit the behaviors predicted by the tasks, one could mistakenly jump to the conclusion that there is a problem with the learner and not the task. Discussion This paper has given a general overview of TBLT methodologies and a sociocultural approach to tasks and SLA. In section I, three methodologies to TBLT, their justification, and their approach to implementation were discussed. A brief outline of TBLT research was provided illustrating some of the task categories that have been derived from this research, and some of the broad problems which still confront TBLT such as task classification, task difficulty, and task complexity. Section II proposed common areas TBLT and SCT share and points of intersection. Both are seen to attempt to inject more context into language learning, and both use tasks as a medium as teaching/researching devices. The two constructs also cross paths where in TBLT the degree that meaning is related to the real world is primary while in SCT it is through the interaction that meaning is made. Section III dicussed the rationale for SCT which emphasizes the study of the system of language as a whole in instances of activity, rather than the study of parts of the system of language. This justifies SCT in that when language is studied in parts it is difficult to reconstruct them into a working whole. Five key components mediation, activity theory, private speech, regulation, and the ZPD for the analysis of activity and talk in tasks were introduced. Finally in section IV, research grounded in a sociocultural theory of development in expert/novice mediated discourse, peer mediated discourse, and research specifically related to tasks was reviewed. It seems certainly clear from the expert-novice/classroom discourse research that dialogic oriented instruction leads to more opportunities for use, and negotiation of meaning which may lead to deeper processing or internalization. This research shows how learners who are proleptically instructed and lead within the ZPD "far outperform" comparison groups. It pushes instructors to think about the opportunities that they make available and about the opportunities that they extend to their learners for dialogic interaction in order to work developmentally within the ZPD. Task related research from an SCT perspective reveals contrasting behavior and activity of learners within tasks. It brings a more microscopic view to what happens inside tasks highlighting learners' orientation and re-orientation in tasks. It reveals how important it is to observe not simply the outcome in tasks, but what learners do as they progress through them. Conclusions To conclude, the implementation of a completely task-based curriculum with its wide-ranging scope is a difficult task in and of itself. As intimidating and overwhelming as the selection and grading of tasks combined with the individual agency that learners bring to the tasks may be, this paradox brings to fore the freedom and flexibility it allows the instructor or researcher to mediate between the two perspectives. TBLT and SCT are highly compatible. In light of the research emerging from SCT it is proposed that use of sociocultural frameworks may provide richer understandings of learners engaged in various forms of TBLT. This should also make it possible to gain further insight to the nature of TBLT methodologies. In this way then it may be possible to push forward using SCT and TBLT to triangulate what and how learners do what they do under task conditions to create and maximize learning-centered second language acquisition under the rubrics of TBLT. References Aljaafreh, A., and Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal 78, 465-83. Anton, M. (1999). The discourse of a learner-centered classroom: Sociocultural perspectives on teacher-learner interaction in the second-language classroom. The Modern Language Journal 83, 303-318. Appel, G., and Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Speaking as mediation: A study of L1 and L2 recall tasks. The Modern Language Journal 78, 437-52. Coughlan, P., and Duff, P. (1994). Same task, different activities: Analysis of a second language acquisition task from an activity theory perspective. In J. P. Lantolf and G. Appel (Eds.): Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 173-193). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. . Crookes, G., and Long, M. (1993). Units of analysis in syllabus design-The case for task. In G. Crookes and S. Gass (Eds.): Tasks in a pedagogical context: Integrating theory and practice. (pp. 9-54). Bristol: Longdunn Press. De Guerrero, M. C. M., and Villamil, O. S. (1994). Social-cognitive dimensions of interaction in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal 78, 484-496. Donato, R. (2000). Sociocultural contributions to understanding the foreign and second language classroom. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.): Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 27-50).Oxford: Oxford University Press. Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf and G. Appel (Eds.): Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33-56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Donato, R and Adair-Hauck, R. B. (1992). Discourse perspectives on formal instruction. Language Awareness 1/2 , 73-89. Ellis, R., and He, X. (1999). The roles of modified input and output in the incidental acquisition of word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 21, 285-301. Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Frawley, W. (1997). Vygotsky and cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Hall, J. K. (1995). " Aw, man, where you goin'?": Classroom interaction and the development of L2 interactional competence. Issues in Applied Linguistics 6, 37-62. Heritage, J. (1997). Conversational analysis and institutional talk: Analysing data. In D. Silverman (Ed.): Qualitative research (pp. 161-182). London: Sage. Kumaravadivelu, B. (1993). The name of the task and the task of naming: Methodological Aspects of task-based pedagogy. In G. Crookes and S. Gass (Eds.): Tasks in a pedagogical context: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 69-96). Bristol: Longdunn Press.. Lantolf, J. P. (Ed.) (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lantolf, J. P. (2000a). Introducing sociocultural theory. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.): Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 1-26).Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lantolf, J. P. (2000b). Second language learning as a mediated process. Language Teaching 33, 79-96. Lantolf, J. P., and Appel, G. (Eds.) (1994). Vygotskian approaches to second language research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Press. Lave, J., and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Long, M., and Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches to task-based syllabus design. TESOL Quarterly 26, 27-56. Luria, A. R. (1981). Language and cognition. New York, NY: Wiley. McCafferty, S. G. (1994a). Adult second language learners' use of private speech: A review of studies. The Modern Language Journal 78/4, 421-36. Nassaji, H., and Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness 1, 34-52. Nunan, D. (1993). Task-based syllabus design: Selecting, grading, and sequencing tasks. In G. Crookes and S. Gass (Eds.): Tasks in a pedagogical context: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 55-68). Bristol: Longdunn Press. Nunan, D. (1991). Communicative tasks and the language curriculum. TESOL Quarterly 25-2, 279-296. Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nunan, D. (1988). The learner-centered curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ohta, A. S. (2000). Rethinking interaction in SLA: developmentally appropriate assistance in the zone of proximal development and the acquisition of grammar. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.): Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 51-78).Oxford: Oxford University Press. Platt, E., and Brooks, F. B. (1994). The "acquisition rich environment" revisited. The Modern Language Journal 78/4: 497-511. Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring. Interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics 22/1, 27-57. Roebuck, R. (2000). Subjects speak out: How learners position themselves in a psycholinguistic task. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.): Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 79-95). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Skeehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Smith, J. (1996). A seven-minute slice of chaos or I'm puzzling through now. Unpublished research report, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. Thorne, S. L. (2000). Second language acquisition theory and the truth(s) about relativity. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.): Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 219-243). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wang, J. (1996). Same task: Different activities. Unpublished research report. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind. A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wertsch, J. V. (1990). The voice of rationality in a sociocultural approach to mind. In L. C. Moll (Ed.): Vygotsky and education: instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 111-126). Cambridge University Press. Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of the mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Williams, J., and Doughty, C. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In J. Williams and C. Doughty (Eds.): Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 197-261). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Willis, J., and Willis, D. (1996). A flexible framework for task-based learning. In J. Willis and D. Willis (Eds.): Challenge and change in language teaching . (pp. 52-62). Oxford: Heinemann. Post by tesl @ 17:17 99 ways to say Very Good.

2004-02-27 17:09 在网上 www.careerlab.com/99ways.htm 发现下面这段。有兴趣的话去看看吧。 99 WAYS TO SAY "VERY GOOD" FOR THOSE DAYS WHEN YOU CAN’T THINK OF WHAT TO SAY You’re on the right track now! You’ve got it made. SUPER! That’s right! That’s good. You’re really working hard today. You are very good at that. That’s coming along nicely. GOOD WORK! I’m happy to see you working like that. That’s much, much better! Exactly right. I’m proud of the way you worked today. You’re doing that much better today. You’ve just about got it. That’s the best you’ve ever done. You’re doing a good job. THAT’S IT! Now you’ve figured it out. That’s quite an improvement. GREAT! I knew you could do it. Congratulations! Not bad. Keep working on it. You’re improving. Now you have it! You are learning fast. Good for you! Couldn’t have done it better myself. Aren’t you proud of yourself? One more time and you’ll have it. You really make my job fun. That’s the right way to do it. You’re getting better every day. You did it that time! That’s not half bad. Nice going. You haven’t missed a thing! WOW! That’s the way! Keep up the good work. TERRIFIC! Nothing can stop you now. That’s the way to do it. SENSATIONAL! You’ve got your brain in gear today. That’s better. That was first class work. EXCELLENT! That’s the best ever. You’ve just about mastered it. PERFECT! That’s better than ever. Much better! WONDERFUL! You must have been practicing. You did that very well. FINE! Nice going. You’re really going to town. OUTSTANDING! FANTASTIC! TREMENDOUS! That’s how to handle that. Now that’s what I call a fine job. That’s great. Right on! You’re really improving. You’re doing beautifully! SUPERB! Good remembering. You’ve got that down pat. You certainly did well today. Keep it up! Congratulations. You got it right! You did a lot of work today. Well look at you go. That’s it. I’m very proud of you. MARVELOUS! I like that. Way to go! Now you have the hang of it. You’re doing fine! Good thinking. You are really learning a lot. Good going. I’ve never seen anyone do it better. Keep on trying. You outdid yourself today! Good for you! I think you’ve got it now. That’s a good (boy/girl). Good job, (person’s name). You figured that out fast. You remembered! That’s really nice. That kind of work makes me happy. It’s such a pleasure to teach when you work like that! I think you’re doing the right thing. Post by tesl @ 17:09 经典英语教学网站

2004-02-26 17:08 http://xtxx.hyedu.net/english_bbs/index.php?act=idx 小学英语教学网论坛 http://www.abcteach.com http://www.pdictionary.com Post by tesl @ 17:08 独领风骚，光耀津门

2004-02-26 15:59 我区田湘军老师荣获全国多媒体软件大奖赛特等奖 12月13日上午10：00，能容纳1000多人的天津宾馆礼堂座无虚席，第七届全国多媒体教育软件大奖赛颁奖典礼在这里隆重举行。与会代表翘首以待。当主持人用高亢的声音宣布：“经组委会、专家评委组一致研究决定，本次大奖赛临时增设一个特等奖。获得此项殊荣的是――广东省佛山市顺德区大良实验小学田湘军老师！”顿时，全场响起雷鸣般的掌声和热烈的欢呼声！教育部基础教育司副司长李天顺先生亲自为田老师颁奖并与其合影留念。 当前来采访的记者现场问道“获得本次大奖赛唯一的特等奖有何感想”时，田老师机智地回答道：“2002年8月，我们实验小学艺术团来天津参加国际少儿艺术节，获得金奖，载誉而归！一年以后的今天，我代表学校，又一次荣幸地站在这领奖台上，心情非常激动。感谢教育部、中央电教馆的各位领导和各位专家评委！更感谢热情好客的天津人民！欢迎你们到广东来作客，欢迎到我们佛山、顺德来作客！”掌声如潮，全场观众再次被田老师的谦逊、睿智所折服。 全国多媒体教育软件大奖赛始于1997年，是国内惟一由政府部门――中央电教馆组织的教育软件评比活动，每年举办一次，已成为我国教育界面向广大教师举办的规模最大的评奖活动，具有很高的权威性。参加“大奖赛”的有全国各地，包括解放军系统和武警部队、香港以及台湾的大中小学教师。特别是名牌高校如清华、北大、南大、复旦、交大和北师大等院校也都组织参加。 经过层层选拔，入闱本届“大奖赛”基础教育组信息技术与学科教学整合课评比决赛的课例共36节。12月9日，现场教学决赛在天津拉开帷幕。来自全国各地的语文、英语、数学、综合实践等4门学科不同年级的36位入闱教师云集津门，展开了激烈的角逐。他们要在信息化网络环境中现场进行交互式教学，组织学生在个性化、协作学习中充分运用探究方式进行学习。 我区大良实验小学田湘军老师再次代表广东省参赛。他的课如行云流水，一气呵成，凭借其标准流利的英语口语、科学合理的教学设计、现代教育技术与传统教学手段的优化整合、机智灵活的课堂调控以及较高的网络信息素养、活泼风趣的教学风格一举征服了现场的所有评委和观摩代表。课一上完，全场爆发出经久不息的掌声！许多人围过去与田老师交流网络教学的经验。 在专家点评中，中央电教馆电教技术开发专家组组长游泽清教授激动万分地说：“广东顺德田湘军老师的这节英语网络课，是我目前为止听到的最好的、最成功的、最有特色的、最体现信息技术与学科教学整合思想的、最符合新课改精神的一节英语课！堪称‘英语网络教学的经典之作’！” 田老师当之无愧地获得了本次全国大赛唯一的特等奖！广东省电教馆特别致电，向大良实验小学报喜并感谢学校为省争光！这是大良实验学校新课程改革和教育教学科研获得的又一硕果。“广东顺德”这一知名品牌再一次在津门发出耀眼的光芒！ （蒋子良） Post by tesl @ 15:59 全国小学英语教学评比暨研讨会赛事报道

2004-02-26 15:52 顺畅网讯 11月3日，从河南郑州"全国小学英语教学评比暨研讨会"上传来振奋人心的消息：我市田湘军老师代表广东省参加比赛，喜获第三名！ 近日，记者专程来到大良实验小学，采访了载誉归来的田湘军老师，请他详细介绍一下本次比赛的情况。 田老师说，这次比赛，我能取得这么好的成绩，都是集体智慧的结晶，荣誉、功劳是属于为本次比赛付出艰辛劳动的领导和老师。我衷心地感谢他们。 本次比赛共有各省、直辖市经过重重选拔上来的32名代表参加。赛前，省教研室十分重视，专门安排我往杭州参加人教社英语教学研讨会，让我在广州、茂名上示范课，作赛前练兵，进行有针对性评析，使我的教学水平得到迅速提高。市教研室王萍老师多次了解赛前准备情况，鼓励我教学要大胆创新，赛出自己的风格。 比赛于10月30日在郑州如期拉开帷幕。除参赛选手及随行的智囊团外，全国共有3000多名代表赶来观摩和研讨，可以说是规模宏大，盛况空前。为保证比赛的公平、公开、公正，大赛采取的是两轮抽签制，第一次抽签决定参赛顺序，第二次抽签决定参赛内容。抽签后只有24小时全封闭备课、制作课件。我抽的是第一天第三节课，课题是"I'd like an apple。" 抽完签我们就投入了紧张的备课、制作课件，直到深夜两点多。课件做好了，大家又陪着听我试教，给我提意见。囫囵躺了两个小时，我又爬起来，自己在房间里一遍一遍地演练。因为我知道，我代表的不仅是个人，而是顺德市，是广东省。 由于准备充分，结果我这一节课上得很成功。特别是评委对我们的课件大吃一惊，没想到在那么短的时间里能做得那么好，录音那么标准。省教研室黄志红老师激动地跑过来说：“上得好！有希望！”结果，我们广东获得了第三名。 亲自率田老师去郑州比赛的校长李仕发对记者说，我听了本次比赛的30多节课，田老师的课的确上得精彩，听课老师掌声最响最久。全国英语教学研究会原理事刘道义教授赛后也说：“广东的这节课，就是体现新课程标准的典范课！”我要感谢田老师为我们广东，为我们顺德，为我们实验小学争了光。我为拥有这么好的老师感到自豪！（通讯员 蒋子良 本报记者 叶海英） 题图为田湘军老师在郑州比赛的情景。（谢福钿 摄） Post by tesl @ 15:52 过去的已成为过去

2004-02-26 15:49 过去的已成为过去 1、 1990年撰写论文《开展课外活动，促进课堂教学》获得湖南省湘潭市1989-1990学年度教学改革经验评奖活动丙等奖。 2、 1990年先后创作数十首英语句型歌曲，其中部分作品在湖南省教育出版社发行的《初中生》杂志1990年9-12期连载。 3、 由于班主任和英语教学工作突出，先进事迹在1990年11月1日《湘潭日报》登载。 4、 1993年上期在学校组织的“先锋杯”优质课竞赛中荣获一等奖。 5、 1994年上期在学校青年优质课竞赛活动中荣获一等奖。 6、 1997年11月辅导潘惠敏同学参加顺德市容奇镇小学六年级英语知识竞赛活动第一名。 7、 1998年撰写教学论文《英语课堂提问艺术初探》在学校学报上发表。 8、 1999年1月撰写教学论文《把游戏带入英语课堂》经中国教育文库编辑委员会评议，选入国家级刊物《现代教育文萃》刊载发表。 9、 1999、2000年两个年度被学校评为优秀教师。 10、2000年4月参加顺德市容奇镇青年教师说课比赛，荣获一等奖。 11、2000年参加顺德市大良区教师演讲比赛，荣获二等奖。 12、2001年1月，撰写的英语教学论文《小学英语情境教学法的应用》获得 顺德市大良区年度论文评比一等奖。 13、 2001学年度被推荐参加顺德市小学英语课堂教学研讨会，所上示范课获得好评。 14、 2001年参加顺德市中小学现代教育技术应用活动日暨教学软件交流会，本人执教的多媒体环境下的英语课荣获小学组优秀奖。 15、 2002年1月，撰写的英语教学论文《计算机辅助教学手段在小学英语教学中的应用》获得大良区教学论文评比二等奖。 16、 2000年9月----2002年3月，先后多次参加学校教研课、汇报课等公开课活动，获得听课教师好评。 17、 2002年4月，获得顺德市大良区小学英语教师英语演讲比赛第一名。 18、 2000年、2001年先后被顺德市教研室聘请担任四、五年级单元目标评价实验的命题工作。 19、 2002年7月被评为学校2001学年度优秀教师。 20、 2002年7月，参加广东省小学英语优质课竞赛，荣获一等奖。 21、 2002年10月，参加全国小学英语教学观摩暨研讨会，所授课程I’d like an apple. 荣获优秀奖(一等奖第三名)。教学设计在《广东教学研究》2002年底12期上刊载。 22、 2002年12月，参加广东省小学英语优质课竞赛所讲授课教学设计在《顺德教育》2002年第六期刊载。 23、 2002年12月，I’d like an apple. 全国小学英语优质课教案被《学英语报》“小学教师版”第38期刊用。 24、 2003年1月参加中国电视师范学院组织的新课标录像课，该课于2003年3月在中央教育电视台播放。 25、 2003年3月，撰写的论文《在小学英语课堂教学中运用多媒体辅助教学手段培养学生创造性思维能力》获得2002学年度顺德区小学英语论文评比一等奖。该论文经过进一步修改，参加中国英语教育年会英语现代教育技术研讨会，获得三等奖。 26、 2003年6月--9月，被顺德区派去英国学习。 27、2003年9月，被“101远程教育网 http://www.chinaedu.com/ 聘为网站“答疑中心”辅导老师 28、2003年10月，参加佛山信息技术与学科整合课例比赛 29、2003年11月，担任顺德小学英语课堂教学比赛评委。 30、2003年11月，担任顺德中级职称评定评委工作。 31、2003年12月7日--13日，在天津参加由中央电教馆组织的“第七届全国多媒体教育软件大奖赛”信息技术与学科教学整合课竞赛，荣获特等奖。(下图为教育部基础教育司副司长李天顺和田湘军老师合影留念） 32、2003年12月20、21日，在广州北大实验中学参加广东省教育学会网络教育专业委员会第一次会议。 33、2003年12月23日，本人制作的“烛光网站”在2003年顺德区中小学现代教育技术教学活动日软件评比中，荣获教师个人主页类二等奖。 34、2003年12月23日，本人上的《Colours》课例，在2003年顺德区中小学现代教育技术教学活动日教学录像课评比中，荣获一等奖。 35、2003年12月，荣获2003学年度大良区教育基金会优秀论文奖。 Post by tesl @ 15:49 教学设计----Colours 颜色

2004-02-26 15:42 教学设计----Colours 颜色 该课获得2003年中央电教馆在天津组织的第七届全国多媒体教育软件大奖赛信息技术与学科教学整合课竞赛最高奖项--特等奖。 一、 学生： 三或四年级学生 二、 教学内容： My Colourful Animal Book Look. This is my animal book. The monkey is The tiger is The elephant is The rabbit is The lion is The zebra is The pig is I love my animal book. 三、 教学步骤 I. 未开始之前 大屏幕展示课题，伴奏音乐。（伴奏Colour 歌曲）期间可以组织学生唱歌---- If you’re happy II. 上课开始

  1. Class begins. Stand up, please. Good morning, class. Sit down, please.
  2. Everyday English.----Hello. I’m Mr. Tian. What’s your name, please? Nice to meet you.
  3. Let’s sing a song.(如果学生不会唱，可以组织唱If you’re happy, etc.) III. Revision (Animals)
  4. 大屏幕：呈现动物图片ask & answer What’s this?
  5. Act (可选择来做) IV. Presentation and practice
  6. 由动物卡片无色变为有色，先问：What’s this? 再问What colour is it? 用这种办法呈现完七种基本颜色。
  7. 展示colour the rainbow, 提出问题
  8. 开始使用网络，进行自主学习 a) Hot air balloon b) Colour circle
  9. 让学生自由玩游戏----Let’s paint. 完成后，由老师指令，让学生用老师的电脑来检测听力:Let’s paint. Colour the rabbit white. ---- 学生完成后，让学生说：The rabbit is white. ----用flash 再做听力题？(值得考虑) V. Development(分层任务)
  10. Make the colourful animal book.----打印展示(送给评委)
  11. Send animal-coloured emails to tesl@tom.com----(大屏幕展示) VI. Sing a song to end the class. Post by tesl @ 15:42 巧用多媒体，培养学生创造性思维能力

2004-02-26 15:30 巧用多媒体，培养学生创造性思维能力 广东省顺德大良实验小学 田湘军 随着科学技术的发展，世界已经进入了知识经济的时代，创新是知识经济的灵魂。江泽民主席指出：“一个没有创新能力的民族，难以屹立于世纪先进民族之林。”面对21世纪人才的挑战，必须培养出创造型人才。英语学科是培养创造性思维的一门重要学科，它不仅要向学生传授语言文化知识，更重要的是要想法设法培养学生能力，特别是创造性思维能力。因此在英语教学中要注意激发学生的学习动机，培养学生的探索精神，培养和促进学生创造性思维的发展。 一、创新性思维的理解及其特征 创造性思维，是指有创建的思维。它是人们在已有知识经验的基础上，从问题中找出新关系，新方法，寻求答案的思维过程。它是一种高级的思维活动，是产生新设想的思维能力的核心，是学生今后立足社会、成材创业必需具备的基础与保证。 我国著名的理论家张光鉴先生在《相似论》中有这样一段论述：“创造思维就是综合运用正确的概念或通过形象思维，在解决理论、实践、生活问题时在人们大脑活动中出现的一种有价值的新思想。”从这一角度来讲，创造性思维应符合以下三条标准。第一，它要能实事求是地解决问题，这是创造性思维存在的价值和目的；第二，它的指向能逼近事物的本质，这是创造思维的核心与关键；第三，这种思维方式必须是突破原有老套路的新主意，这是创造思维的基本特征，其具体表现在思维的灵活性、发散性、主动性、超前性和批判性等。 二、多媒体辅助教学的特点 现代社会的发展迫切要求教育现代化，而教育技术现代化是教育现代化的一个重要方面。随着计算机技术与相关学科的发展，多媒体辅助教学手段已成为一门现代化教育技术。它能化平面为立体，化无声为有声，化抽象为具体，化静态为动态，这是其他媒体所无法替代的。 运用这一手段辅助教学，可以轻松地解决教学内容中的诸多矛盾，突破重难点，同时能够增加课堂密度，扩大学生信息量，而且还能丰富课堂教学的形式，提高学生学习兴趣。正因为它的这一特点，给注重听说读写的小学英语教学创造了更多的学习机会，为提高教学效果起到了十分重要的作用。 三、巧用多媒体，培养学生创造性思维能力 在英语新授课教学中我们常常将教学分为以下五步，即：Preparation课前准备----Revision旧课复习----Presentation新课呈现----Consolidation操练巩固----Development发展提高。下面具体谈谈在这几个步骤中如何使用多媒体辅助教学手段培养学生创造性思维能力。 1、 Preparation----重视课前热身，创设良好的英语学习氛围 “良好的开始是成功的一半”。如果在上课的一开始，教师就能以生动、有趣、新颖的开端为学生创设一个良好的语言学习氛围，将学生引进英语学习的大门，那么将为教学的成功打下一个良好的基础。 在这一环节中，我们常常使用英语歌曲或英语游戏的方法展开。 1）歌曲，是活跃小学英语课堂气氛的一把好钥匙。它以其优美的韵律，明快、欢乐或抒情的节奏吸引并打动学生的心弦，使孩子们动情、动心，并获得音乐的享受。一首优美动听的英文歌曲既能使学生们集中注意，提高兴趣，乐于求知，又能使学生们迅速地投入到英语学习的氛围中来，这样便能使我们的英语教学起到事半功倍的效果。传统的教学模式中，我们可能通过播放英语歌曲磁带，并辅以教师和学生的动作表演完成。而有了多媒体技术手段的辅助，我们可以将适合孩子的英语歌曲制作成Flash动画，通过大屏幕展示。在这一过程中，学生们不仅能够听到优美的旋律、欢快的节奏，而且能够亲眼看到精彩的动画、准确的歌词说明，同时再运用TPR(Total Physical Response)“全身动作反应法”，让学生参与表演。孩子们在多种感官的刺激下，学习英语的积极性得到了充分的调动，为创造性思维活动的开展做好了充分的准备。 2）游戏，是调节英语课堂气氛、发展学生创造性思维的秘密武器。通过多媒体技术手段，我们可以充分利用互联网上的共享资源，开展形式多样的、传统游戏所无法替代的教学游戏活动。例如：当低段学生在进行英语字母学习的过程中，我们的教学重点是要求学生达到字母认读的目的。在这一阶段，我们常常和学生们一起登陆到www.disney.com 或 www.sesamestreet.com 等网站，调用其中的 Find and Say 等游戏。展现在学生面前的是一幅幅精美的图画，他们要用自己敏锐的目光从这些图画中找出隐藏其中的一些英语字母。每当他们成功地找到一个字母，电脑就会发出这一字母清晰标准的读音，而且程序会自动将他们带入一个更加扑溯迷离的境地。学生们在这一过程中，可以展开自己丰富的想象，大胆尝试，勇于实践。期间，学生们的创造性思维得到了充分的发展。 2、 Revision----活用多媒体，温故而知新 在旧课复习阶段，多媒体技术的灵活运用发挥着传统教学手段不可比拟的作用。例如：三年级的学生在学完(PEP Primary English)Unit Five―Let’s Eat之后，紧接着就开始了Unit Six―Happy birthday的学习。这两个单元有着一个共同的联系，那就是关于食物和饮料的英语表达。在复习过程中，我们经过认真地钻研教材，精心设计了魔术猜物的游戏。我们将迪斯尼卡通片Peter Pan《小飞侠》引入到课件中，由他扮演一个技艺超群的魔术师。只见一张张绘有食物和饮料的单词图片在他灵巧的手中飞快旋转，眨眼间十多张单词图片消失在魔术师的小房间里。然后我们让学生点击鼠标，展开自己的丰富的想象和准确的记忆力，判断飞速变化中的单词卡片各自躲藏在小房间的那个位置。在这一过程中，教师在多媒体教学辅助手段的帮助下，再也不必为十多张英语单词卡片而忙得手足无措。孩子们也充分感受到了获取知识的快乐，而且记忆力、判断力、创造性思维能力得到了发展。 3、 Presentation----巧用多媒体，创设学习情境，培养创新思维 在英语教学中，使用情景交际教学法有助于提高学生的语言能力，通过创设一定的情景来呈现句子、对话的内容，既生动有趣又吸引人，学生在一定的情景中很快进入角色，激发学生的学习兴趣，开拓学生思维空间，使学生全身心地投入到情景之中，达到准确地理解句子并积极参与对话。 传统的教学手段可能是通过看图、听录音进行。而多媒体辅助教学手段却能将图、文、音频、视频及动画融为一体，为情境的创设提供了一个广阔的空间。在今年七月参加广东省小学英语优质课竞赛过程中，我授课的具体内容是： A: What do you like for breakfast? Do you like noodles? B: I don’t like noodles. I like cereal. A: Cereal? What is cereal? B: Look, this is cereal. I’d like to put some milk and sugar in it. Oh, it’s delicious. Would you like to have a try? A: OK. Emm. Yummy, yummy. 针对这一对话，我充分发挥多媒体的优势设计了这样一个情境。那是发生在一片茂密的大森林里的故事。清晨，天真可爱的白雪公主从小木屋中走出来，她伸了伸腰，说道：Ah, what a nice morning! 然后低头一看，已是早餐时间了。于是，她冲着小木屋喊道：Hey, it’s time to have breakfast！随着这一声喊，七个小矮人在诙谐、幽默的乐曲声中排着长队从小木屋里走了出来。他们来到大树下的餐桌旁坐下，纯洁善良的白雪公主正在为他们准备早餐。于是便开始了他们之间关于早餐的对话。通过这一情境的创设，孩子们的思维空间得到了拓展，对于对话的理解力得到了加强，陌生的语言知识一下子变得那么熟悉，而且充满了乐趣。 4、 Consolidation----改变操练形式，巩固教学效果 在语言知识讲解完毕之后，如何进行操练和巩固，这是一个值得研究的课题。传统教学模式中有一个十分重要的方法，那就是Reading Practise朗读训练。教师常常会让学生先跟读磁带，然后再老师带读，之后给学生一段时间进行自我朗读准备。接下来组织全班同学齐读、分小组读、两人之间读，个人表演读等等，最后进行背诵检查。使用这种方法进行语言知识的操练，形式单调，枯燥乏味，机械性强，对学生创造性思维的发展起到了消极作用。而通过使用多媒体辅助教学手段，也许一个简单的设计就能使这一过程变得生动活泼、趣味盎然，变机械性操练为灵活创新式操练，这样不仅能够巩固教学效果，而且在发挥学生主动性、创造性思维过程中起到良好的推动作用。在上面提到的朗读训练过程中，我们只需要设计一个简单的画面，在其中输入操练内容的全文，然后组织学生进行视、听、读。随着朗读训练的深入，电脑程序会将语言知识中的重难点逐一去除，直到最后全部消失。这种形式的操练看似简单，但它却能吸引学生注意力，促进学生开展灵活多样、富有创造性的学习活动，收到良好的效果。 5、 Development----学以致用，发展提高 学习知识要学用结合，学用一致，最终达到学以致用、发展提高的目的。所以在发展提高阶段的教学中，不仅要让学生巩固和掌握规律性的知识，更重要的是要使学生能灵活运用规律去解决问题，以提高学生的应用能力和思维能力。例如：当学生学完Asking the way这一课后，我安排了这样一段内容。通过多媒体电脑、投影仪，在大屏幕上呈现出与课文主题内容相近的一段动画。只见一位背着旅游包、正走在北京王府井大街上的游客。她正拿着一张地图看着，似乎迷路的样子。这时，一位警察主动走了上来提供帮助，他们之间的对话就这样开始了。在多媒体手段的辅助下，屏幕上展示出一幅清晰的北京市地图，并用箭头标出这位游客想去的地方。在这一动画呈现过程中，教师有意将对话声关闭，然后将学生们分成小组，让他们在小组活动中发挥自己的想象，并结合动画给出的提示，用刚刚学过的英语句型创造出一段新的对话。在观看数遍之后再让同学们按角色给这段动画配音。Can I help you? Can you tell me the way to the post office? Yes, of course. Go straight ahead. Turn right at the third crossing. You can find it beside a school. Etc. 这些重点句型就在这种创造性的学习活动中得到巩固、发展和提高。在这一活动中，同学们使用课文中学到的句子，积极思维，大胆想象，组员间的积极合作、主动交流，达到了发展提高、拓展创造性思维的目的。 培养学生创造性思维能力，是素质教育的一个重要组成部分。随着教育现代化的不断深入，教学手段现代化的不断改进，教学模式的不断完善，我们将在教学工作中大胆创新、科学实践，在实践中探索，在实践中完善，使我们的课堂焕发出生命的活力。 Post by tesl @ 15:30 活动设计----My Friend 我的朋友

2004-02-26 15:26 My Friend (我的朋友）活动设计 广东省深圳市罗湖区螺岭小学 叶雄雁 一、目的对象：这一节活动课是为螺岭小学校一年级“双语”（英语、汉语）教学实验班设计的。目的是让小朋友通过课文内容的学习活动，学会用英语介绍自己的同学、朋友、老师。 二、活动准备：学生使用的教材是香港朗文出版社的《New Welcome To English》，这节活动课是在学生入学两个月后举行的，在这之前，绝大部分学生一点英语基础都没有，都是入学后靠任课教师用全英语教学方式、采用多种生动活泼的教法训练出来的。课前，老师准备了一些人物图片、四只小狗图片作为这节课的教具。要求学生在家听录音、作好课前预习。 三、活动过程： 1、学生齐唱英文歌曲（如In The Classroom、Ten Little Indian Boys、What Do You Like? T等）背诵小诗词（如Little Mouse、I Like Summer、Little Bird等）。 2、将学生分成4组进行比赛，师生间、同学间进行日常英语对话。（如1、A：How are you? B：Fine, thanks. 2、A：What’s your name? B：My name is Sophie. 3、A：Where are you from? B：I am from Shenzhen. 4、A：What school are you in? B：I am in Luoling Primary School. 5、A：What colour do you like? B：I like pink. 6、A：What can you do? B：I can read. 7、A：Who is your friend? B：Paul is my friend.等27组问答对话）。 3、老师出示一些图片，要求学生用英语看图说话。（图1 This is a boy. Look, he has a book. He has a pencil. He has a ruler. He has a pencil box. What’s that? It’s a mouse. My Goodness! 图2 This is a pet shop. The cat is shouting. The bird is flying. There is a mouse, too. It’s eating. 图3 This is a funny picture. The children are dressing up. The boy is wearing a coat. It’s too long. The girl is wearing a dress. The big dog is wearing a skirt and the little dog is wearing a hat. How funny!） 4、老师出示一些人物图片，教授新单词he she，并要求学生用he或者she来代替a boy、a girl、a woman、a man、Miss Lee、Tom、Mary等。 5、老师根据人物图片，教学生介绍自己的朋友（This is Mary. She is a good girl. She is my friend）然后让学生学习介绍自己的朋友、老师。 6、作业布置：画一个朋友，然后作简短的作绍。 四、活动总结：We studied how to induce people to others on this period. Please introduce your friends and your teachers to your parents.（我们在这节课学习了如何介绍人给其它人认识，请你用英语把你的朋友、老师介绍给爸爸、妈妈认识。） 五、自我点评 我认为这是一节比较成功的活动课。在这节课中，我利用比赛的形式，成功地调动学生的积极性；用歌曲、小诗来营造英语气氛；利用英语日常对话来锻炼学生的口语、交际能力；利用看图说话来锻炼学生的口头表达能力；用图片、实物、录音来教学生介绍人物；让学生运用所学介绍朋友，体现教学内容的实用性、交际性。整节课上得生动有趣、形式多样、各个环节比较紧凑、能够突出课文重点、学生学得轻松，能体现英语教学听说领先的原则。我认为这就是这节课的成功之处。 Post by tesl @ 15:26 My First Time

2004-02-26 14:59 前几天丹东的一位朋友给我的个人主页提了一些意见。 在她的意见中谈到了blog。当我听到/看到这个词的时候，我居然一点概念都没有。（由此可见自己是如何的孤陋寡闻，不思进取。） 于是，这两天专门去教师图书馆借了几本含有相关资料的杂志，又在网上查找了一些资料。嘿，现在才有了一点感觉。 刚才通过 www.google.com 找到了 www.blogbus.com 这个网站，注册为会员之后，马上又申请了自己的blog。现在，哈哈，有了自己的blog--烛光。 江南一烛，希望烛光照亮你，也照亮我。 Post by tesl @ 14:59