学位论文 > 优秀研究生学位论文题录展示

“支架式”教学模式在高中写作课堂中的实验研究

作　者: 钱晓琦
导　师: 张涛
学　校: 内蒙古师范大学
专　业: 学科教学
关键词: 英语写作教学 “支架式”写作教学法传统写作教学法
分类号: G633.41
类　型: 硕士论文
年　份: 2012年
下　载: 14次
引　用: 0次
阅　读: 论文下载

内容摘要

在中国西部农村的中学，多数英语教师使用的传统写作教学方法主要关注语言的精确性，而忽视了在写作过程中如何帮助学生。因此国内外英语教学界提倡用“支架法”进行外语写作教学。这种写作教学方法，关注老师和同伴在学生写作的各项活动中提供的帮助，被认为是较为有效的写作教学方法。本研究采用实验研究法，试图检验“支架法”对提高中学生写作水平和写作兴趣的有效性。实验在两组被试者中进行。一组接受“支架式”写作教学方法，另一组接受传统的教学方法。在为期一学期的实验中，进行了前后测和实验前后的二次问卷调查。本实验拟回答以下两个假设：1）与传统的教学方法相比，“支架法”是否更有助于提高不同层次学生的写作水平？2）与传统的教学方法相比，“支架法”是否更有助于提高学生的写作兴趣和信心？实验结果证明：“支架式”教学模式不但开阔了学生的视野，极大地提高了学生的写作兴趣和信心，并且提高了学生的写作水平，其中，中等写作水平学生的进步最大。研究表明，经过为期一学期的实验，实验班的平均分比非实验班高1.51分，T值分析表明两班总分存在极大差距。因此，我们可以得出结论：实验班的表现优于非实验班。这一发现也证实了“支架式”教学模式比传统写作方法更能提高学生的写作能力。这一研究还向我们展示了两班在写作兴趣和自信心上存在明显差异：1）相比非实验班（32.79%），实验班（53.33%）有更高比例的学生喜欢英语写作，且差距明显。2）相比非实验班，实验班有更高比例的学生认为英语作文并不困难。在回答“作文困难吗”的问题中，有2.35%的实验班学生和45.90%的非实验班学生作出了肯定回答。3）相比非实验班（34.43%），实验班（61.67%）有更高比例的学生意识到作文的衔接很重要；两班的多数学生（实验班90%，非实验班83.61%）都认为语法和语言是好作文最重要的因素，而内容则是另一重要方面。总之，“支架式”写作教学法是一种有效的教学模式，在具体的实施过程中，如何使不同层次学生都能积极参与写作活动中，并使学生的写作水平得以相应的提高是“支架式”写作教学模式成功的关键。

全文目录

中文摘要  3-5
ABSTRACT  5-12
Chapter 1 Introduction  12-18
  1.1 The rationale for the present research  12-16
    1.1.1 Rise of Constructivism in writing teaching  12-13
    1.1.2 The current writing teaching situation in Chinese rural high schools  13-16
      1.1.2.1 High demands for writing ability  13
      1.1.2.2 Problems and difficulties encountered by the students and teachers  13-16
  1.2 The significance of the study  16-17
  1.3 Objectives of the research  17
  1.4 The structure of the thesis  17-18
Chapter 2 Theoretical Basis and Literature Review  18-29
  2.1 Theory on ESL and EFL writing  18-21
    2.1.1 The nature of writing  18-19
    2.1.2 Aims of writing teaching  19
    2.1.3 The criteria of good writing  19-20
    2.1.4 The differences between skilled and unskilled writers  20-21
    2.1.5 Summary  21
  2.2 Theoretical introduction of Scaffolding Instruction  21-29
    2.2.1 Theoretical foundation for Scaffolding Instruction  21-23
    2.2.2 Theoretical advocacy of Scaffolding Instruction  23
    2.2.3 The features of Scaffolding Instruction  23-24
    2.2.4 Stages in Scaffolding Instruction  24-25
    2.2.5 A changed role for teachers  25-26
    2.2.6 A changed role for students  26-27
    2.2.7 Advantages and disadvantages of Scaffolding Instruction  27-29
Chapter 3 Description of the Experiment  29-40
  3.1 Research objectives  29
  3.2 Subjects  29-30
  3.3 The teaching resources  30-31
  3.4 Procedure of the research  31-38
    3.4.1 Before the experiment  31
    3.4.2 Implementing the experiment  31-37
      3.4.2.1 Preparation before writing activities  31-32
      3.4.2.2 Actual class presentation: the writing process in English classroom  32-37
        3.4.2.2.1 Pre-writing  32-34
          3.4.2.2.1.1 Model scaffold  33
          3.4.2.2.1.2 Question scaffold  33
          3.4.2.2.1.3 Suggestion scaffold  33
          3.4.2.2.1.4 Guidance scaffold  33-34
          3.4.2.2.1.5 Diagram scaffold  34
        3.4.2.2.2 Drafting  34
        3.4.2.2.3 Group discussion  34-35
        3.4.2.2.4 The final draft  35
        3.4.2.2.5 Evaluation  35-37
          3.4.2.2.5.1 Peer reviewing  35-36
          3.4.2.2.5.2 Teacher’s written response  36
          3.4.2.2.5.3 Self-evaluation  36-37
        3.4.2.2.6 The classroom procedures in control group  37
    3.4.3 After the experiment  37-38
  3.5 Data collection  38
  3.6 Scoring  38
  3.7 Data analysis devices  38-40
Chapter 4 Data Analysis and Discussion  40-61
  4.1 Results from the tests and discussion  40-44
    4.1.1 Test score analysis  40-42
      4.1.1.1 Comparison between the two classes’ writing performances in the pre-test  40-41
      4.1.1.2 Comparison between the two classes’ writing performances in the post-test  41
      4.1.1.3 Comparison between the pre-test and post-test of EC  41-42
      4.1.1.4 Comparison between the pre-test and post-test of CC  42
    4.1.2 Discussion  42-44
  4.2 Comparison between the pre-test and post-test of students of different English writing levels in EC  44-45
  4.3 Results from the questionnaires and discussion  45-61
    4.3.1 CC and EC before the research  45-50
    4.3.2 Subjects’ changes after the research  50-57
      4.3.2.1 Comparative analysis of EC and CC in the same part of the post-questionnaire after the treatment  50-54
      4.3.2.2 Comparative analysis in the same part between the pre-questionnaire and the post- questionnaire of EC  54-57
    4.3.3 Learners’ feedback about Scaffolding Instruction  57-58
    4.3.4 Discussion  58-61
Chapter 5 Conclusion  61-65
  5.1 Findings  61-63
  5.2 Implications  63
  5.3 Limitations  63-65
References  65-68
Appendices  68-86
  Appendix 1 Questionnaire I (for EC&CC)  68-70
  Appendix 2 Questionnaire II (for EC)  70-72
  Appendix 3 Questionnaire III (for CC)  72-74
  Appendix 4 Pre-test  74-75
  Appendix 5 Post-test  75-76
  Appendix 6 Scoring scale  76-77
  Appendix 7 Writing topics for EC&CC  77-79
  Appendix 8 Sample lesson plan with Scaffolding Instruction  79-82
  Appendix 9 Three composition versions of a student and responses to them from other students and the teacher  82-84
  Appendix 10 Guidelines for peer reviewing  84-85
  Appendix 11 The marking criteria of NMET of  85-86

“支架式”教学模式在高中写作课堂中的实验研究

内容摘要

全文目录

相似论文