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

Abstract

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.

CLC Number:

H319

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.

References

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]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 454(4): 35-41.
[2]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 454(4): 72-81.
[3]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 454(4): 82-91.
[4]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 454(4): 92-96.
[5]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 454(4): 97-102.
[6]	XU Ying, BI Yu, ZHANG Yaqing. A Review of Vocabulary and English for Specific Purposes Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 453(3): 104-108.
[7]	GUO Hongjie, ZHANG Daqiu, DING Dong. An Integrated and Innovative Talents-fostering Model with Practices for FLL Discipline at Chinese Financial Universities in the New Liberal Arts [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 453(3): 35-44.
[8]	PAN Haiying, LIU Shuling. Innovation and Development of College Foreign Languages Teaching in the Construction of New Liberal Arts [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 453(3): 45-52.
[9]	MA Bingjun, CHANG Hui. Research on L2 Chinese Syntactic Processing: Theories and Empirical Studies [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 453(3): 61-70.
[10]	TAO Jifen. POA-based Reading and Speaking Approach to Oral English Teaching [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 453(3): 96-103.
[11]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 452(2): 106-110.
[12]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 452(2): 84-95.
[13]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 452(2): 96-105.
[14]	Lihe HUANG. Foreign Language Teaching and Research in the Post- pandemic Era: A Multimodal Paradigm [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 451(1): 75-85.
[15]	Yongyan ZHENG. Multilingual Research in a Post-COVID Era: Reflection and Prospection [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 451(1): 64-74.