研究型高校本科生EAP写作教学设计案例——关注大学教师教学设计能力的触发机制

当代外语研究 ›› 2013, Vol. 13 ›› Issue (08): 35-39.

研究型高校本科生EAP写作教学设计案例——关注大学教师教学设计能力的触发机制

龚嵘, 吴承钧

华东理工大学,上海,200237

出版日期:2013-08-15 发布日期:2020-07-25
作者简介:龚嵘,华东理工大学外语学院副教授。主要研究方向为二语习得。电子邮箱:gongrong_2003@163.com;吴承钧,华东理工大学外语学院讲师。主要研究方向为跨文化交际。电子邮箱:wuchengjun2002@126.com
基金资助:
*本文系教育部人文社科规划项目“基于复杂适应体系论的大学生英语学术词汇产出性知识发展模型研究”(编号10YJA740025)与华东理工大学中央高校基本科研业务费文科培育项目“研究型高校本科生学术英语写作能力生态性塔式培养”(编号WS1122002)资助的研究成果之一。

A Case of Instructional Design for EAP Writing Program of Undergraduates at Research-oriented Universities: The Development Mechanism of College English Teachers' ID Ability

GONG Rong, WU Chengjun

Online:2013-08-15 Published:2020-07-25

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 由于具体教学情景的复杂性与不可预测性,促进学习者发展的学习系统的最佳设计者是一线教师,而非专业设计者。本文研究者以大学英语教师身份,在协作教学框架下探索如何通过“教学设计”实现教与学的理论向有效EAP写作教学活动的转化。整个设计过程采用自上而下路径,从EAP写作能力“综合素养观”的宏观目标内涵思考,到“面向学习者共同体的问题驱动式”设计原则的理论视角与微观定位,再到动态交叉设计系统的具体参数设置,并从中发现大学英语教师学科教学设计能力的发展机制即教师意识决定设计行动。

关键词: 教学设计, 学术英语写作, 面向学习者共同体, 问题驱动, 评判性思维

Abstract: As an essential aspect in teacher development, content related humorous instructor discourse(CRHID)refers to the funny, comical or amusing teacher talk related with the content of teaching, which is conducive to constructing a happy classroom atmosphere as well as to the mastering of knowledge related to it. As an effective teaching tool, it is seldom noticed and studied in China, though great importance is attached to it at abroad. This paper examines the related concepts, its operation mechanisms, its types and functions, and then proposes that systematic use of it is needed. It is believed that mores studies on four areas are necessitated, namely the appropriate frequency, the way of humor construction, the issues concerning actual use and the consolidation of the beneficial effects. Finally, areas for future research are provided.

中图分类号:

H319

龚嵘, 吴承钧. 研究型高校本科生EAP写作教学设计案例——关注大学教师教学设计能力的触发机制[J]. 当代外语研究, 2013, 13(08): 35-39.

GONG Rong, WU Chengjun. A Case of Instructional Design for EAP Writing Program of Undergraduates at Research-oriented Universities: The Development Mechanism of College English Teachers' ID Ability[J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2013, 13(08): 35-39.

参考文献

Brown, J. S., A. Collins & S. Duguid. 1989. Situated cognition and the culture of learning [J]. Educational Researcher 18(1): 32-42.
Bruce, I. 2005. Syllabus design for general EAP writing courses: A cognitive approach [J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes (3): 239-56.
Chapman, C. & C. H. Hyatt. 2011. Critical Conversations in Co-teaching: A Problem Solving Approach [M]. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Coffey, H. 2008. Critical literacy [EB/OL]. [2012-08-13]. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. http:∥www.learnnc.org/lp/pages/4437.
Ellis, R. 2003. Task-based Language Teaching [M]. London: Oxford University Press.
Grigoryan, A. & J. M. King. 2008. Adbusting: Critical media literacy in a multi-skills academic writing lesson [J]. English Teaching Forum 4(1): 2-9.
Johnson, T. E., T. N. Archibald & G. Tenenbaum. 2010. Individual and team annotation effects on students' reading comprehension, critical thinking, and meta-cognitive skills [J]. Computers in Human Behavior 26(6): 1496-507.
Luke, A. 2000. Critical literacy in Australia [J]. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 43(1): 1-19.
Leung, A. & C. Chiu. 2010. Multicultural experience, idea receptiveness and creativity [J]. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology 41(4): 723-41.
Merill, M. D. 2002. First principles of instruction [J]. Educational Technology Research and Development 50(3): 43-59.
Morozov, A. 2011. Student attitudes towards the assessment criteria in writing-intensive college courses [J]. Assessing Writing 161(1): 6-31.
Ozdilek, Z. & E. Robeck. 2009. Operational priorities of instructional designers analyzed within the steps of the Addie instructional design model [J]. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 1(1): 2046-50.
Paul, R. & L. Elder. 2007. The Thinker's Guide to How to Write a Paragraph: The Art of Substantive Writing [M]. Dillon Beach, California: Foundation for Critical Thinking.
Pescatore, C. 2007. Current events as empowering literacy: For English and social studies teachers [J]. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 51(4): 326-39.
Smith. P. I. & T. I. Ragan. 1999 Instructional Design [M]. New York: John Wiley Sons.
蔡基刚.2010a.ELE还是ESP,再论大学英语的发展方向[J].外语电化教学135(4):20-26
蔡基刚.2010b.关于我国大学英语教学重新定位的思考[J].外语教学与研究42(4):206-08
蔡基刚.2012.“学术英语”课程需求分析和教学方法研究[J].外语教学理论与实践2(2):30-36
龚嵘& Fu Danling. 2011.基于论坛的大学英语主题式交互性写作——任务动机视角[J].外语电化教学141(5):15-20
龚嵘.2012.大学英语论坛协作学习行为的多元动态解释模型构建[J].中国电化教育(5):44-48
马彦.2009.大学英语应该成为通识教育的重要组成部分[J].现代大学教育(4):103-07
麻彦坤、叶浩生.2004.差异与互补:皮亚杰与维果茨基认知发展观比较的新思考[J].心理科学27(6):1426-27
裴新宁.2005.面向学习者的教学设计[M].上海:教育科学出版社.
仇云龙、张绍杰.2012.民国时期学术型英语人才培养特色及其当下启示[J].外语教学33(3):62-65
文旭.2013.以“思”为基础的外语教育思想[J].当代外语研究385(1):34-39
钟启泉.2001.社会建构主义:在对话与合作中学习[J].上海教育(7):45-48.

[1]	张荔. 学术英语写作课程设计与评估——基于留美中国学生的证据[J]. 当代外语研究, 2018, 18(03): 17-22.
[2]	滕延江, Peter De Costa. 学术英语写作与国际发表中的JARS要领与4C原则——Peter De Costa博士访谈[J]. 当代外语研究, 2017, 17(05): 48-53.
[3]	滕延江. 活动理论视角下的学术英语写作“四位一体”教学范式[J]. 当代外语研究, 2017, 17(03): 53-58.
[4]	滕延江;. “学术读写素养”范式与学术英语写作课程设计[J]. 当代外语研究, 2016, 16(01): 41-47.
[5]	龚嵘. 大学学术英语写作教学的社会文化探究——学习者身份建构视角[J]. 当代外语研究, 2015, 15(06): 34-39.