自主学习在职毕业论文范文 和课堂环境下的交互式自主学习模式方面硕士学位毕业论文范文

该文是关于自主学习论文范文,为你的论文写作提供相关论文资料参考。

课堂环境下的交互式自主学习模式

Liu Jixin

(School of Foreign Languages, China West Normal University, Nanchong, Sichuan, 637002)

[Abstract]The present thesis discourses on the meaning and development of learner autonomy and develop an interactive English autonomous learning mode in the classroom setting on the basis of the theoretical foundation in psychology and in SLA. Finally, it discusses its implications in teaching practice in classroom.

[Key words]interactive autonomous learning,interaction,learner autonomy,teaching practice in classroom

[中图分类号] H319[文献标识码] A[文章编号] 1672\|8610(2016)02\|0168\|04

I. Introduction

Autonomy has become one buzzword in recent years in educational discussions abroad and at home. Accompanied by the

emergence and development of cognitive and humanistic psychology, western educationists took initiative to take the fostering of learners’ responsibility as one of the ultimate goals of education. It is until the 1970s that the concept of autonomy first entered the field of language teaching through the Council of Europe’s Modern Language Project which aimed initially at providing adults with opportunities for lifelong learning.

  Since then, scholars aboard he done enormous researches on it. The researches in 1980s are mainly concerned with the definition and the cultivation of learner’s ability of being independent and autonomous learning competence. The researches from 1990s pay more attention to the exploration of the theoretical foundation, the political, cultural and psychological factors that affect the learner autonomy, the strategies of implementing learner autonomy, the results of the experimentation, the training of learning strategies and the establishment of self-access center. Recently, the issue of autonomous learning in social context and cooperative learning is revisited and attaches more and more attention.

The domestic researches on learner autonomy start later than the researches conducted aboard. The researches begin with introduction of the basic ideas of leaner autonomy form the late 1980s and develop very quickly both in qualitative discussions of the theories and quantitative studies in 1990s. The early 21st century witnesses a flourishing period in which the researches are launched in a full-scale and deeper way. The researches cover the definition of autonomy, the principles of autonomous learning, the theoretical foundation of learner autonomy, the conditions of learner autonomy, the factors that affect learner autonomy, the characteristics of autonomous learner, the learner autonomy and culture, the role of the teachers in autonomous learning, the relationship between training of learning strategies and learner autonomy, the establishment of self-access center, cooperative learning and the realization of learner autonomy and the means of assesent in autonomous learning. However, the idea of interaction applied to autonomous learning appears rather late and needs further research. This is what the author intends to analyze in the following parts.

Ⅱ. Interaction in Autonomous Learning

The idea of interaction in learner autonomy appears late in 1990s. Holec (1981, cited in Gardner and Miller, 2002) defines autonomy as ‘the ability to take charge of one’s own learning’. Although Holec (1985b, cited in Benson, 2005) still contend that autonomy is a capability of learner, other scholars began to refer to situations in which learners worked under their own direction outside the conventional language-teaching classroom. Dickinson (1897, cited in Benson, 2005) even defines autonomy as ‘the situation in which the learner is totally responsible for all of the decisions concerned with his learning and the implementation of those decisions’ and use ‘full autonomy’ to describe the situation in which the learner is completely independent of teachers, institutions or specially prepared materials. At the beginning, the term independence is considered as a synonym for autonomy. With the development of psychology and practice of learner autonomy in classroom setting, the focus on autonomy in 1990s turns towards issues of collaboration and negotiation. One of the most challenging developments in the theory of autonomy in the 1990s is the idea that autonomy implies interdependence (Benson, 2002). The influential study in this area was carried out by Leni Dam and her colleagues in Danish secondary schools, where a model of autonomy was based on classroom and curriculum negotiation (Dam, 1995, cited in Benson, 2005). Little (1996, cited in Benson, 2005) argues that collaboration is essential to the development of autonomy as a psychological capacity, stating that ‘the development of a capacity for reflection and analysis, central to the development of learner autonomy, depends on the development of an internalization of a capacity to participate fully and critically in socially interaction’.

The researches at home on interaction in autonomous learning begin at the early 21st century. Jiang (2001) in his dissertation for master’s degree first argues that the path to learner autonomy in EFL is through cooperative learning which emphasizes active and responsible learning through interpersonal interaction. Han (2003) explores the relationship between learner autonomy and interactive language teaching in classroom. He notices that learner autonomy is the prerequisite and basis of interactive teaching and interactive teaching provides the guidance and facilitation to promote learner autonomy. The concept of interactive autonomous learning is first put forward by Yuan in 2007. He suggests that the interaction between student and computer, student and teacher, student and student is quite important in computer and Internet based learning.

  The teaching reality is that the miatch between comparatively fewer teachers and large number of students forces the universities to form large class for intensive reading classroom, aller class for listening and speaking, reserving time for students’ “autonomous learning” in self-access center. The problem is that most of students in intensive reading class remain passive and silent because of the large number of students, the time allotted to listening and speaking in language lab is not

enough and most of the time students spent in self-access center is on CET 4 or CET 6 test or on video materials. Thus, the input increased a lot nowadays; the output is still far from enough. Wang (2008) contends that autonomous learning does not imply the self-instruction in isolation. The communicative competence and the affective needs to be with other people entail the language interaction in classroom. The paper will analyze the interactive autonomous learning mode in detail and discourse the implications in teaching practice.

Ⅲ. Interactive Autonomous Learning in Classroom Setting

  Interactive autonomous learning is a learning mode in which the learners receive and convey meaningful information through interaction with the teachers, peer learners and contexts through learning tasks and activities actively and critically in order to promote the fostering of learner autonomy and language competence. Interaction in the definition has twofold of meanings. One is the receiving and conveying of meaningful information which is of interest to the learners. The other is the interplay between learners and the teachers, peer learners and contexts through learning tasks. Learner autonomy is a capacity to take control of one’s own learning in the service of one’s perceived needs and aspiration (Aoki, 2000). It refers to the domain-specific knowledge and skills necessary (1) to make choices concerning what, why, and how to learn, (2) to implement the plan and (3) to evaluate the outcome of learning. Thus, autonomous learning and learner autonomy are completely different concepts. To contend that autonomous learning should be interactive oriented is the

requirements of the social constructivi in educational psychology and theories of SLA.

3.1 The theoretical foundation in psychology

  People usually think that education is something carried out by a person, a teacher, standing in front of a class and tranitting information to a group of learners who are all willing and able to absorb it. However, the teaching-learning process of education is rather complex. It involves an intricate interaction between the learning process itself, the teacher’s intentions and actions, the individual personalities of the learners, their culture and background, the learning environment and a host of other variables. This can be demonstrated by social constructivi.

  According to constructivi put forward by Piaget, individuals are actively involved right from birth in constructing personal meaning, that is their personal understanding, from their experiences. Every learner who is the focus in the learning process makes their own sense of the world and the experiences that surround them. Kelly (1955, cited in Williams and Burden, 2006) puts forward personal-construct theory. He began with the premise of ‘man-as-scientist’ constantly seeking to make sense of his world. He contends that people carry out their own personal experiments, construct hypotheses and actively seek to confirm or disconfirm them. But we need notice that constructivi partially emphasizes that learner is the focus of the learning process, neglecting the reality that the learning itself happens in a constant process of interaction between learners and other factors such as teachers, teaching materials, learning contexts and learning tasks. Therefore, the author agrees with the social constructivist model put forward by Williams and Burden in the book Psychology for Language Teachers. They formed the model by combining the ideas of humani and social interactioni with constructivi. Humanistic approaches emphasize the importance of the inner world of the learner and place the individual’s thoughts, feelings, and emotions at the forefront of all human development. That is to say, it emphasizes the development of the whole person rather than focusing solely upon the development and employment of cognitive skills. As for social interactioni, it indicates that children are born into a social world, and learning occurs through interaction with other people. It accords with the social nature of language learning. Therefore, we can find that there is a much-needed theoretical underpinning to a communicative approach to language teaching, where it is claimed that we learn a language through using the language to interact meaningfully with other people. However, the implications for the language teacher of taking a social interactionist perspective he only recently begun to emerge.

  The social constructivist model formed by Williams and Burden (2006) is a combination of the ideas of humani and social interactioni with constructivi. The model suggests that learners as a whole person actively take part in the learning activities to make sense of the world and to solve problems through the active interaction between learners and teachers, tasks, and learning contexts. From this model, we can find that learner autonomy as a capability should be developed through social interactions with the consideration of cultivation of thoughts, feelings and emotions (the development of the whole person).

  3.2 The theoretical foundation in SLA

  The theories of SLA also require that learner autonomy should be developed through interaction. To contend this is first because that language is speech rather than writing and speech is precondition for writing. The justification for this idea came from the facts that (a) the first appearance of any language is speech in the development of the language, (b) normal children learn to speak before they learn to write and (c) many societies he no written language, although all societies he oral language. Therefore, the nature of language learning is both to learn to speak and to learn to write. To learn to speak is much more important in language learning. Hatch (1992), Teresa Pica (1994) and Michael Long (1983), among others (cited in Lightbown and Spada, 2004), he argued that much second language acquisition takes place through conversational interaction. Thus, we need to learn a language through social interaction rather than in isolation.

  Another reason is that comprehensible input is crucial to language acquisition. According to Krashen (1985, cited in Gass and Selinker, 2001), humans acquire language in only one way—by understanding messages, or by receiving ‘comprehensible input’. He notices that input that is useful for L2 acquisition must be neither too difficult nor too easy to understand and ought to be tuned just right to learner’s current level, represented as i. Comprehensible input, in Krashen’s view, is that bit of language that is heard/read and that is slightly ahead of a learner’s current state of knowledge. In the course of acquiring L2, learners constantly progress from stage i to stage i +1 by understanding input containing i +1. And one of the most efficient ways to ensure the learners to receive a sufficient amount of comprehensible input is interaction. Through interaction, learners can negotiate meaning with peer learners and teachers. In this way, i +1 knowledge can be better comprehended and taken in.

  The third theory which can demonstrate that language should be learned in interaction is Comprehensible Output Hypothesis. According to Swain (1985, cited in Ellis, 1997), it refers to the need for a learner to be ‘pushed toward the delivery of a message that is not only conveyed, but that is conveyed precisely, coherently, and appropriately’. That is to say, ‘output may stimulate learners to move from the semantic, open-ended, nondeterministic, strategic processing prevalent in comprehension to the complete grammatical processing needed for accurate production. Output, thus, would seem to he a potential significant role in the development of syntax and morphology’. And the important factor in this hypothesis is that production will aid acquisition only when the learner is ‘pushed’. That is to say, they should produce in real conversational interaction for real communicative purpose. Therefore, they will be able to develop greater control over the features they he already acquired.

Ⅳ. The Implications in Teaching Practice

  According to what has been analyzed above, we can find that learner autonomy as a capability should be developed through interaction. In order to realize interactive autonomous learning, we should prepare the four elements (the learners, teachers, learning tasks, and learning contexts) for interaction.

  In order to realize interactive autonomous learning, the learners should be conscious about their own roles. They should not be passive listeners or readers but be actively involved in the learning activities, monitor the learning process and adjust the learning tempo and strategies. All these can only be achieved by systematic strategy training. Only when they become aware of the nature of language and language learning and mater the language learning strategies can they finally learn efficiently and handle the life-long learning.

  As for language teachers, they should also take on different roles rather than mere instructors. The role of teachers and learner is dynamic. It is subject to the change of teaching methods as well as activities. The interactive autonomous learning mode demands the teachers not only be the instructor but also the organizer, facilitator, commentator, director, participant, prompter, etc.

  The learning tasks should also be interaction oriented. In order to motivate the learner to interact actively, we should first take the learners’ schema (co-culture, learning experiences, and present proficiency) and their individual differences (age, sex, aptitude, class, ethnicity, learning styles and general intelligence, etc.) into consideration when we choose the learning materials and design learning tasks. The aim is to provide them with the opportunities to actively participate in the learning activities to receive and convey authentic and meaningful information which can in turn promote the language learning.

The importance of classroom learning context (environment) cannot be underestimated. The learning cannot happen without the proper learning context. Organizing the learners into cooperative learning groups or pairs is very popular and effective in language classroom to allow and motivate the learner to communicate. And it is also important for the teachers to create a pleasant atmosphere to make the learners feel less pressure from the learning activities or the exams.

Ⅴ. Conclusion

In this paper, the author analyzed the development of learner autonomy and developed an interactive English autonomous learning mode in the classroom setting on the basis of the theoretical foundation in psychology (a constructivist model) and in SLA (Comprehensible Input Hypothesis and Comprehensible Output Hypothesis). The author finally analyzed the implications in teaching practice in classroom from the perspectives of learners, teachers, learning tasks and learning context. Because of the limited time, the paper lacks experimentation to prove it. This is what the author intends to do in future researches.

【 References 】

[1]Aoki, Naoko. 2000. Affect and the role of teachers in the development of learner autonomy[C]//J. Arnold. Affect in Language Learning. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.

\[2\] Arnold, J. 2004. Affect in Language Learning[M].Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.

\[3\] Benson, P. 2005. Teaching and Researching Autonomy in Language Learning[M].Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.

\[4\] Dam, L. 1995. Learner Autonomy 3: from Theory to Classroom Practice[M].Dublin: Authentik.

\[5\] Dickinson, L. 1987. Self-instruction in Language Learning[M].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

\[6\] Ellis, R. 1994. The Study of Second Language Acquisition[M].Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.

\[7\] Ellis, R. 2003. Task-based Language learning and Teaching[M].Oxford: Oxford University Press.

\[8\] Gardner, D. and L. Miller. 2002. Establishing Self-Access From Theory to Practice[M].Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.

\[9\] Gass, S. M. and L. Selinker. 2001. Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course[M].New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

\[10\] Hatch, E. 1992. Discourse and Language Education[M].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

\[11\] Holec, H. 1981. Autonomy in Foreign Learning[M].Oxford: Pergamon.

\[12\] Holec, H. 1985b. Self-assesent[C]//Robert J. Mason. Self-directed Learning and Self-access in Australia: from Practice to Theory. Proceedings of the National Conference of the Adult Migrant Education Programme, Melbourne, June 1984. Melbourne: Council of Adult Education.

\[13\] Jiang, Jingyang. 2006. Communicative Activities in EFL Classrooms[M].Zhejiang University Press.

\[14\] Kelly, G. 1955. The Psychology of Personal Constructs[M].New York: Norton.

\[15\] Krashen, S. 1985. The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications[M].New York: Longman.

\[16\] Lightbown, P., N. Spada. 2004. How Languages are Learned[M].Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.

\[17\] Little, D. 1995a. Learning as Dialogue: the Dependence of Learner Autonomy on Teacher Autonomy[J].System, 23(2): 175-82.

\[18\] Little, D. 1996. Freedom to Learn and Compulsion to Interact: Promoting Learner Autonomy through Use of Information System and Information Technologies[C]//R. Pemberton et al. Taking Control: Autonomy in Language Learning. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

\[19\] Long, M. H, 1983. Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input[J].Applied Linguistics, 4: 126-41.

\[20\] Mason, R. J. 1985. Self-directed Learning and Self-access in Australia: from Practice to Theory[D].Proceedings of the National Conference of the Adult Migrant Education Programme, Melbourne, June 1984. Melbourne: Council of Adult Education.

\[21\] Pemberton, R., Li, E. S. L., Or, W. W. F., Pierson, H. D. 1996. Taking Control: Autonomy in Language Learning[M].Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

\[22\] Pica, T. 1994. Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second language acquisition?[J].Language Learning, 44: 493-527.

\[23\] Reid, J. M. 2002. Learning Styles in the ESL/EFL classrooms[M].Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.

\[24\] Richards, J. C. 2001. The Context of Language Teaching[M].Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.

\[25\] Richards, J. C., C. Lockhart. 2000. Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classrooms[M].People’s Education Press.

\[26\] Rivers, W. M. 2000. Interactive Language Teaching[M].Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.

\[27\] Scharle, A., A. Szabo. 2001. Learner Autonomy[M].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

\[28\] Sinclair, B., McGrath, I., Lamb, T. 2000. Learner Autonomy, Teacher Autonomy: Future Directions[M].London: Longman.

\[29\] Stern, H. H. 1997. Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching[M].Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.

\[30\] Wells, Gordon. 1981. Learning Through Interaction The Study of Language Development[M].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

\[31\] Williams, M., R. L. Burden. 2006. Psychology for Language Teachers[M].Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.

\[32\] 丁言仁.第二语言习得研究与外语学习[M].上海外语教育出版社,2005.

\[33\] 韩光.学生自主学习与课堂互动教学[J].教育探索,2003(1).

\[34\] 姜辉.通过合作式学习提高英语专业新生的学习自主性[D].辽宁师范大学,2001.

\[35\] 汪小亚.网络环境下大学英语自主学习教学模式探讨[J].浙江树人大学学报,2008(1).

\[36\] 吴本虎.英语学习策略[M].安徽教育出版社,2002.

\[37\] 袁小陆.交互式大学英语自主学习模式研究[J].外语电化教学,2007(117).

课堂环境下的交互式自主学习模式研究

刘吉欣

(西华师范大学 外国语学院,四川南充637002)

[摘 要]本文论述学习者自主的意义与发展历程,并以心理学和二语习得两方面的相关理论为基础,提出交互式自主学习模型.最后,笔者探讨交互式自主学习模型对课堂语言教学的启示.

[关键词]交互式自主学习;交互;学习者自主;课堂教学

自主学习论文范文结:

关于自主学习方面的的相关大学硕士和相关本科毕业论文以及相关自主学习论文开题报告范文和职称论文写作参考文献资料下载。

1、自主招生论文