一项基于英语学习网络课程的学习自主性调查
|
摘要
建构主义认为知识是一种不断积极的实践和建构过程。基于这种教育理论，学生应是学习过程的主体，应对自己的学习负责。本文通过对苏州大学英语专业三年级学生参加为期一学期的“因特网辅助英语学习入门”选修课整个过程的调查，探究了在计算机辅助教学环境支持下，以建构主义的思想为指导的项目教学法是如何逐步促进学生自主学习观念和策略变化的。
本课题的定量研究材料来源于一项在课程前、后对学生自主学习性的问卷调查。问卷主要考察五十一名参加选修课的学生在自主学习观念和策略方面有无统计意义上的变化。定性研究主要建立在与四位在自主学习性方面有不同变化程度的学生的访谈上。访谈紧扣研究问题和Holec(1981)有关自主发展的三个关键因素，详细考察被采访者在确立学习目标，执行计划，评估过程中观念和策略的具体变化，以及促进和阻碍这些变化的内外因素。另外，笔者的观察笔记，学生的各种写作样本也都作为定性研究数据。通过对采集数据的客观分析，笔者得出以下结论：
1．由于观念的相对稳定性和时间有限，学生在学习目标确定和计划执行的观念方面没有发现统计意义上的变化，但还是朝着预先估计的方向发展的。评估观念显示有显著变化，但这种变化不是突然发生的，而是学生在项目中积极地评估自己的学习，不断反思，通过不同途径发现问题，相互比较而逐渐取得的。
2．经过一学期的学习，学生的学习策略变化显著，尤其表现在确立目标、执行计划和评估策略方面。研究表明这些学习策略能够帮助学生“学习如何学习”，使学生成为学习的主导者，而基于建构主义的计算机辅助项目教学法在这方面起了不可忽视的重要作用。
3．有许多因素促进或制约着机辅自主学习的发展。最重要的促进因素是教师的帮助、项目教学法和计算机辅助学习环境；而制约的因素则包括学生对这种新的学习模式和环境的错误观念、项目管理不到位以及技术支持不足等。
以上研究结果表明基于建构主义的计算机辅助项目教学法在促进自主学习方面具有潜力，可以帮助学习者树立理念、选择策略、确立目标、执行计划和自我评估。然而这种计算机辅助项目教学的成效仍然取决于项目的设计、课堂的组织管理、行政技术服务、以及教师与学生多方面的充分支持。
Recent researches in cognitive psychology and ESL/EFL learning theories reveal that learners themselves are the internal and dominant factor in language learning, and thus learner autonomy should become an unquestionable goal of education (Candy, 1989; Littlewood, 1999; Nunan, 2001; Piaget, 1977; Vygotsky, 1978). This paper investigates the effects of a computer-assisted project-based learning program on the development of learner autonomy. By exploring its impact on the students' autonomous learning beliefs and strategies, this paper aims to improve our ability to design CALL programs that foster autonomous learning so that we can implement such programs more effectively. The theoretical base for this study is a goal-oriented cognitive and social constructivist view of learning. H. Holec's three essential elements in learner autonomy development are employed as the research framework. They are goal-setting, independent-action and evaluation.
In the research, both quantitative and qualitative methods were employed. The quantitative data were obtained from a learner autonomy survey of 51 third-year English majors in Suzhou University. Meanwhile, post-project interviews, the writer's observation notes and the students' writing samples were employed in order to gain insights into the process of learner changes. The major findings can be summarized as follows:
1. No statistically significant changes have been found in goal-setting beliefs and independent-action beliefs during the one-semester's CALL program, but the general tendency of change has been identified in the expected directions. Obvious changes in the evaluation beliefs have been identified. However, the data analysis reveals that such changes do not take place immediately. Rather, they penetrate gradually into the students' increasing involvement in the evaluation activities, into their awareness of the benefits and into their constant reflections on the learning processes.
2. Goal-setting strategies, independent-action strategies and evaluation
strategies, have undergone statistically significant changes throughout the computer-assisted and project-based course. The students learn to make decisions about their own learning, determine the order of steps to be taken to complete the tasks, solve their own problems, evaluate the progress and predict the possible outcome. They are becoming the learners with clear goals and with the ability to manage their own learning.
3. Many factors seem to have either facilitated or inhibited the development of learner autonomy in this CALL classroom. The most prevalent facilitating factors are teacher support, a new construedvist pedagogy, and a favorable CALL environment, while the inhibiting factors include students' misconceptions and disinclination, project management problems and inadequate technical support.
In light of the above findings, this paper suggests that the constructivist project-based learning with technology has potential in developing learner autonomy, in terms of both learning beliefs and strategies, which include goal-setting, independent-action and evaluation. However, the effects of such CALL programs still depend on program design, classroom management and adequate support from administrators, technicians, teachers and learners themselves.
本课题的定量研究材料来源于一项在课程前、后对学生自主学习性的问卷调查。问卷主要考察五十一名参加选修课的学生在自主学习观念和策略方面有无统计意义上的变化。定性研究主要建立在与四位在自主学习性方面有不同变化程度的学生的访谈上。访谈紧扣研究问题和Holec(1981)有关自主发展的三个关键因素，详细考察被采访者在确立学习目标，执行计划，评估过程中观念和策略的具体变化，以及促进和阻碍这些变化的内外因素。另外，笔者的观察笔记，学生的各种写作样本也都作为定性研究数据。通过对采集数据的客观分析，笔者得出以下结论：
1．由于观念的相对稳定性和时间有限，学生在学习目标确定和计划执行的观念方面没有发现统计意义上的变化，但还是朝着预先估计的方向发展的。评估观念显示有显著变化，但这种变化不是突然发生的，而是学生在项目中积极地评估自己的学习，不断反思，通过不同途径发现问题，相互比较而逐渐取得的。
2．经过一学期的学习，学生的学习策略变化显著，尤其表现在确立目标、执行计划和评估策略方面。研究表明这些学习策略能够帮助学生“学习如何学习”，使学生成为学习的主导者，而基于建构主义的计算机辅助项目教学法在这方面起了不可忽视的重要作用。
3．有许多因素促进或制约着机辅自主学习的发展。最重要的促进因素是教师的帮助、项目教学法和计算机辅助学习环境；而制约的因素则包括学生对这种新的学习模式和环境的错误观念、项目管理不到位以及技术支持不足等。
以上研究结果表明基于建构主义的计算机辅助项目教学法在促进自主学习方面具有潜力，可以帮助学习者树立理念、选择策略、确立目标、执行计划和自我评估。然而这种计算机辅助项目教学的成效仍然取决于项目的设计、课堂的组织管理、行政技术服务、以及教师与学生多方面的充分支持。
Recent researches in cognitive psychology and ESL/EFL learning theories reveal that learners themselves are the internal and dominant factor in language learning, and thus learner autonomy should become an unquestionable goal of education (Candy, 1989; Littlewood, 1999; Nunan, 2001; Piaget, 1977; Vygotsky, 1978). This paper investigates the effects of a computer-assisted project-based learning program on the development of learner autonomy. By exploring its impact on the students' autonomous learning beliefs and strategies, this paper aims to improve our ability to design CALL programs that foster autonomous learning so that we can implement such programs more effectively. The theoretical base for this study is a goal-oriented cognitive and social constructivist view of learning. H. Holec's three essential elements in learner autonomy development are employed as the research framework. They are goal-setting, independent-action and evaluation.
In the research, both quantitative and qualitative methods were employed. The quantitative data were obtained from a learner autonomy survey of 51 third-year English majors in Suzhou University. Meanwhile, post-project interviews, the writer's observation notes and the students' writing samples were employed in order to gain insights into the process of learner changes. The major findings can be summarized as follows:
1. No statistically significant changes have been found in goal-setting beliefs and independent-action beliefs during the one-semester's CALL program, but the general tendency of change has been identified in the expected directions. Obvious changes in the evaluation beliefs have been identified. However, the data analysis reveals that such changes do not take place immediately. Rather, they penetrate gradually into the students' increasing involvement in the evaluation activities, into their awareness of the benefits and into their constant reflections on the learning processes.
2. Goal-setting strategies, independent-action strategies and evaluation
strategies, have undergone statistically significant changes throughout the computer-assisted and project-based course. The students learn to make decisions about their own learning, determine the order of steps to be taken to complete the tasks, solve their own problems, evaluate the progress and predict the possible outcome. They are becoming the learners with clear goals and with the ability to manage their own learning.
3. Many factors seem to have either facilitated or inhibited the development of learner autonomy in this CALL classroom. The most prevalent facilitating factors are teacher support, a new construedvist pedagogy, and a favorable CALL environment, while the inhibiting factors include students' misconceptions and disinclination, project management problems and inadequate technical support.
In light of the above findings, this paper suggests that the constructivist project-based learning with technology has potential in developing learner autonomy, in terms of both learning beliefs and strategies, which include goal-setting, independent-action and evaluation. However, the effects of such CALL programs still depend on program design, classroom management and adequate support from administrators, technicians, teachers and learners themselves.
引文
Bakhtin, M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Barell, J. (1995). Teaching for thoughtfulness: Classroom strategies to enhance intellectual development (2nd ed.). NY: Longman Publishers.
Blin, F. (1999). CALL and the development of leamer autonomy. In R. Debski & M. Levy (Eds.), World CALL: Global perspectives on computer-assisted language learning (pp. 169-184). The Netherlands: Swets & Aeitlinger Publishers.
Boud, D. (Ed.). (1988). Developing student autonomy in learning. New York: Kogan Press
Breen, M. (1987). Contemporary paradigms in syllabus design (parts Ⅰ and Ⅱ). Language Teaching, 20, 91-92 and 157-174.
Brown, H. D. (1980). Principles of language learning and teaching. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A. & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher (January-February), 32-42.
Bruffee, K. A. (1986). Social construction, language and the authority of knowledge: A bibliographical essay. College English, 48, 773-790.
Candy, P. (1989). Constructivism and the study of self-direction in adult learning. Studies in the Education of Adults, 21, 95-116.
Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64 (1), 1-35.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing, and mathematics. In Resnick, L. B. (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, N J: Erlbaum.
Cotterall, S. (1995). Developing a course strategy for learner autonomy. ELT Journal, 49 (3), 219-227.
Dewey, J. (1938). Education and experience. New York: Macmillan.
Dickinson, L. (1995). Autonomy and motivation: A literature review. System, 23 (2), 165-174.
Dickinson, L., & Carver, D. (1980). Learning how to learn: Steps towards self-direction in foreign language teaching in schools. ELT Journal, 35 (1), 1-7.
Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. C. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In Jonassen, D. H (ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology. New York: Macmillan.
Flower, L. (1979). Writer-based prose: A cognitive basis for problems in writing. College English, Ⅻ (1), 19-46.
Fosnot, C. T. (1996). Constructivism: A psychological theory of learning. In. Fosnot, C. (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, perspective and practice (pp.8-33). New York: Teachers College Press.
Gardner, D. (1996). Self-assessment for self-access leamers. TESOL Journal Spring, 18-22.
Glasersfeld, E. V. (1995). Introduction: Aspects of constructivism. In. Fosnot, C. (Eds.), Constructivism: Theory, perspective and practice (pp.3-4). New York: Teachers College Press.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Griffee, D. (1998). Classroom self-assessment--A pilot study. JALT Journal, 20 (1), 115-125.
Gu, P. Y. (2002). Effects of project-based CALL on Chinese EFL learners. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 12, 52-66.
Hatch, E. & Farhady, H. (Eds.). (1982). Research design and statistics for applied linguistics. Rowley: Newbury Hourse Publishers, Inc.
Healey, D. (1999). Theory and research: Autonomy in language learning. In Egbert, J. & Hanson-Smith, E (Eds.). CALL environment: Research, practice and critical issues 24 (pp.391-426). Alexandria, VA: TESOL Publications.
Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
Holec, H. (1985). On autonomy: Some elementary concepts. In Riley, P. Discourse and learning (pp. 171-190). Harlow: Longman.
Huttunen, I. (1986). Towards learner autonomy in foreign language learning in senior secondary school. Oulu, Finland: University of Oulu.
Jonassen, D. (1999). Learning with technology: A constructive perspective. NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Jones, J. F. (1995). Self-access and culture: Retreating from autonomy. ELT Journal, 49 (3), 228-233.
Jones, J. (2001). CALL and the teacher's role in promoting learner autonomy. CALL-EJ Online, 3 (1). Retrieved August 7, 2002 from http://www.clec.ritsumei.ac.jp/english/callej online/6-1/jones.html.
Kelm, O. (1992). The use of synchronous computer networks in second language instruction: A preliminary report. Foreign Language Annals, 25, 441-454.
Krashen, S. (1986). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.
Lee, I. (1998). Supporting greater autonomy in language leaming. ELT Journal, 154 (4), 282-289.
Legutke, M. & Thomas, H. (1991). Process and experience in the language classroom. Harlow: Longman.
Little, D. (1991). Learner autonomy: Definitions, issues and problems. Dublin: Authentic Language Learning Resources Ltd.
Littlewood, W. (1999). Defining and developing autonomy in East Asian contexts. Applied Linguistics, 20 (1), 71-94.
Littlewood, W. (2000). Do Asian students really want to listen and obey? ELT Journal, 54 (I), 31-35.
Martyn, E. (1994). Self-access logs: Promoting self-directed learning. In Garder, D. & Miller, L. (Eds.). Directions in self-access language learning (pp.65-77). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
McDonough, J. & Shaw, C. (1994). Materials and methods in ELT: A teacher's guide. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers
McGarry, D. (1995). Learner autonomy 4: The role of authentic texts. Dublin: Authentik.
Means, B. & Olson, K. (1995). Technology's role in education reform: Findings from
a national study of innovating schools [Research report prepared by SRI International for the U.S. Department of Education]. Retrieved October 2, 2000, from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/SER/Technology.
Mendona, C. O., & Johnson, K. E. (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 745-768.
Minick, N. (1989). L. S. Vygotsky and Soviet activity theory." Perspectives on the relationship between mind and society. Literacies Institute, Special Monograph Series No. 1. Newton, MA: Educational Development Center, Inc.
Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Moulden, H. (1980). Extending self-directed leaming in an engineering college: Experiment 2. Mélanges Pédagogiques, CRAPEL, 83-116.
Nunan, D. (1995). Closing the gap between learning and instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 29 (2), 133-158.
Nunan, D. (2001). The learner-centered curriculum: A study in second language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Nunan, D. (2001). Tradition and change in the ELT curriculum. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 33 (4), 252-256.
Oxford, R. L. (1997). Cooperative leaming, collaborative leaming, and interaction: Three communicative strands in the language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 81 (4), 443-456.
Papert, S. (1987). Computer criticism and technocentric thinking. Educational Researcher, January-February, 22-27.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Pemberton, R. (1996). Taking control: Autonomy in language learning. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Piaget, J. (1977). Equilibration of cognitive structures. New York: Viking Press.
Richards, J., Platt, J., Platt, H. (1992). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. London: Longman.
Rousseau, J. J. (1966). Emile. London: Dent. (Translation from 1762 Emile ou de l'Education)
Schank, R. C. (1994). Goal-based scenarios. In Schank, R. C. and Langer, E. (Eds.), Beliefs, reasoning, and decision making: Psycho-logic in honor of Bob Abel-son. Hillsdale, N J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sergeant, S. (2001). CALL innovation in the ELT curriculum. In Hall, D. and Hewings, A. (Eds.), Innovation in English language teaching: A reader. London: Routledge.
Sheerin, S. (1997). An exploration of the relationship between self-access and independent learning. In Benson, P. and Voller, P. (Eds.), Autonomy and independence in language learning. London and New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Thanasoulas, D. (2000). What is learner autonomy and how can it be fostered. Online Internet TESL Journal, 6 (11). Retrieved August 8, 2002 from http://www.aitech.ac.jp/iteslj/Articles/Thanasoulas-Autonomy.html.
Toyoda, E. (2001). Exercise of learner autonomy in project-oriented CALL. CALL-EJ Online, 2 (2). Retrieved September 2, 2002 from http://www.lerc.ritsumei.ac.jp/callej/5-2/toyoda.html.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, Mass: Havard University Press.
Warschauer, M. (1996). Computer learning networks and student empowerment. System, 24 (1), 1-14.
Warschauer, M. (1996). Motivational aspects of using computers for writing and communication. In Warschauer, M (Ed.), TelecoIlaboration in foreign language learning (pp. 29-46). Honolulu, HI: Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center (University of Hawai'i Press). Retrieved Dec 26, 2002 from http://www.nflrc.hawaii.edu/NetWorks/NW01.
Warschauer, M. (1999). Electronic literacies: Language, culture and power in online education. Manwah, N. S: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Warschauer, M., Schetzer, H., & Meloni, C (2000). Internet for English Teaching.
Alexandria, VA: TESOL Publications.
Wen, Q. F. (1993). Advanced level English learning in China: The relationship of modifiable learner variables to learning outcomes. Hong Kong University: Unpublished doctoral thesis in
Wenden, A. (1991). Learner strategies for learner autonomy. New York: Prentice Hall.
Wenden, A. (1999). Metacognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied Linguistics, 19 (4), 515-537.
Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Oxford: Harvard University Press.
Williams, M. & Burden, R. L. (1997). Psychology for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University
范晔，(1999)，浅谈大学英语教学中的“学习者训练”[J]，《外语界》第3期。
黄月圆、顾日国，(1996)，以学生为中心，多维一体的大学英语教学法[J]，《外语教学与研究》第2期。
彭金定，(2002)，大学英语教学中的“学习者自主?问题研究[J]，《外语界》第3期。
苏晓军、王海贞、顾佩娅，(1999)，大学英语课堂教学的现状与改革[J]，《南京大学学报》增刊。
王笃勤，(2002)，大学英语自主学习能力的培养[J]，《外语界》第5期。
魏玉燕，(2002)，促进学习者自主性：外语教学新概念[J]，《外语界》第3期。
文秋芳，宋文伟，(1999)，综合素质实践课——从理论到实践[J]，《外语界》第3期。
文秋芳、乐眉云、丁言仁、王文字，(2000)，九五社科项目结项报告：英语学习者动机、观念、策略的变化规律与特点[M]。
Barell, J. (1995). Teaching for thoughtfulness: Classroom strategies to enhance intellectual development (2nd ed.). NY: Longman Publishers.
Blin, F. (1999). CALL and the development of leamer autonomy. In R. Debski & M. Levy (Eds.), World CALL: Global perspectives on computer-assisted language learning (pp. 169-184). The Netherlands: Swets & Aeitlinger Publishers.
Boud, D. (Ed.). (1988). Developing student autonomy in learning. New York: Kogan Press
Breen, M. (1987). Contemporary paradigms in syllabus design (parts Ⅰ and Ⅱ). Language Teaching, 20, 91-92 and 157-174.
Brown, H. D. (1980). Principles of language learning and teaching. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A. & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher (January-February), 32-42.
Bruffee, K. A. (1986). Social construction, language and the authority of knowledge: A bibliographical essay. College English, 48, 773-790.
Candy, P. (1989). Constructivism and the study of self-direction in adult learning. Studies in the Education of Adults, 21, 95-116.
Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64 (1), 1-35.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing, and mathematics. In Resnick, L. B. (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, N J: Erlbaum.
Cotterall, S. (1995). Developing a course strategy for learner autonomy. ELT Journal, 49 (3), 219-227.
Dewey, J. (1938). Education and experience. New York: Macmillan.
Dickinson, L. (1995). Autonomy and motivation: A literature review. System, 23 (2), 165-174.
Dickinson, L., & Carver, D. (1980). Learning how to learn: Steps towards self-direction in foreign language teaching in schools. ELT Journal, 35 (1), 1-7.
Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. C. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In Jonassen, D. H (ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology. New York: Macmillan.
Flower, L. (1979). Writer-based prose: A cognitive basis for problems in writing. College English, Ⅻ (1), 19-46.
Fosnot, C. T. (1996). Constructivism: A psychological theory of learning. In. Fosnot, C. (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, perspective and practice (pp.8-33). New York: Teachers College Press.
Gardner, D. (1996). Self-assessment for self-access leamers. TESOL Journal Spring, 18-22.
Glasersfeld, E. V. (1995). Introduction: Aspects of constructivism. In. Fosnot, C. (Eds.), Constructivism: Theory, perspective and practice (pp.3-4). New York: Teachers College Press.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Griffee, D. (1998). Classroom self-assessment--A pilot study. JALT Journal, 20 (1), 115-125.
Gu, P. Y. (2002). Effects of project-based CALL on Chinese EFL learners. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 12, 52-66.
Hatch, E. & Farhady, H. (Eds.). (1982). Research design and statistics for applied linguistics. Rowley: Newbury Hourse Publishers, Inc.
Healey, D. (1999). Theory and research: Autonomy in language learning. In Egbert, J. & Hanson-Smith, E (Eds.). CALL environment: Research, practice and critical issues 24 (pp.391-426). Alexandria, VA: TESOL Publications.
Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
Holec, H. (1985). On autonomy: Some elementary concepts. In Riley, P. Discourse and learning (pp. 171-190). Harlow: Longman.
Huttunen, I. (1986). Towards learner autonomy in foreign language learning in senior secondary school. Oulu, Finland: University of Oulu.
Jonassen, D. (1999). Learning with technology: A constructive perspective. NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Jones, J. F. (1995). Self-access and culture: Retreating from autonomy. ELT Journal, 49 (3), 228-233.
Jones, J. (2001). CALL and the teacher's role in promoting learner autonomy. CALL-EJ Online, 3 (1). Retrieved August 7, 2002 from http://www.clec.ritsumei.ac.jp/english/callej online/6-1/jones.html.
Kelm, O. (1992). The use of synchronous computer networks in second language instruction: A preliminary report. Foreign Language Annals, 25, 441-454.
Krashen, S. (1986). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.
Lee, I. (1998). Supporting greater autonomy in language leaming. ELT Journal, 154 (4), 282-289.
Legutke, M. & Thomas, H. (1991). Process and experience in the language classroom. Harlow: Longman.
Little, D. (1991). Learner autonomy: Definitions, issues and problems. Dublin: Authentic Language Learning Resources Ltd.
Littlewood, W. (1999). Defining and developing autonomy in East Asian contexts. Applied Linguistics, 20 (1), 71-94.
Littlewood, W. (2000). Do Asian students really want to listen and obey? ELT Journal, 54 (I), 31-35.
Martyn, E. (1994). Self-access logs: Promoting self-directed learning. In Garder, D. & Miller, L. (Eds.). Directions in self-access language learning (pp.65-77). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
McDonough, J. & Shaw, C. (1994). Materials and methods in ELT: A teacher's guide. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers
McGarry, D. (1995). Learner autonomy 4: The role of authentic texts. Dublin: Authentik.
Means, B. & Olson, K. (1995). Technology's role in education reform: Findings from
a national study of innovating schools [Research report prepared by SRI International for the U.S. Department of Education]. Retrieved October 2, 2000, from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/SER/Technology.
Mendona, C. O., & Johnson, K. E. (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 745-768.
Minick, N. (1989). L. S. Vygotsky and Soviet activity theory." Perspectives on the relationship between mind and society. Literacies Institute, Special Monograph Series No. 1. Newton, MA: Educational Development Center, Inc.
Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Moulden, H. (1980). Extending self-directed leaming in an engineering college: Experiment 2. Mélanges Pédagogiques, CRAPEL, 83-116.
Nunan, D. (1995). Closing the gap between learning and instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 29 (2), 133-158.
Nunan, D. (2001). The learner-centered curriculum: A study in second language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Nunan, D. (2001). Tradition and change in the ELT curriculum. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 33 (4), 252-256.
Oxford, R. L. (1997). Cooperative leaming, collaborative leaming, and interaction: Three communicative strands in the language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 81 (4), 443-456.
Papert, S. (1987). Computer criticism and technocentric thinking. Educational Researcher, January-February, 22-27.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Pemberton, R. (1996). Taking control: Autonomy in language learning. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Piaget, J. (1977). Equilibration of cognitive structures. New York: Viking Press.
Richards, J., Platt, J., Platt, H. (1992). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. London: Longman.
Rousseau, J. J. (1966). Emile. London: Dent. (Translation from 1762 Emile ou de l'Education)
Schank, R. C. (1994). Goal-based scenarios. In Schank, R. C. and Langer, E. (Eds.), Beliefs, reasoning, and decision making: Psycho-logic in honor of Bob Abel-son. Hillsdale, N J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sergeant, S. (2001). CALL innovation in the ELT curriculum. In Hall, D. and Hewings, A. (Eds.), Innovation in English language teaching: A reader. London: Routledge.
Sheerin, S. (1997). An exploration of the relationship between self-access and independent learning. In Benson, P. and Voller, P. (Eds.), Autonomy and independence in language learning. London and New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Thanasoulas, D. (2000). What is learner autonomy and how can it be fostered. Online Internet TESL Journal, 6 (11). Retrieved August 8, 2002 from http://www.aitech.ac.jp/iteslj/Articles/Thanasoulas-Autonomy.html.
Toyoda, E. (2001). Exercise of learner autonomy in project-oriented CALL. CALL-EJ Online, 2 (2). Retrieved September 2, 2002 from http://www.lerc.ritsumei.ac.jp/callej/5-2/toyoda.html.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, Mass: Havard University Press.
Warschauer, M. (1996). Computer learning networks and student empowerment. System, 24 (1), 1-14.
Warschauer, M. (1996). Motivational aspects of using computers for writing and communication. In Warschauer, M (Ed.), TelecoIlaboration in foreign language learning (pp. 29-46). Honolulu, HI: Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center (University of Hawai'i Press). Retrieved Dec 26, 2002 from http://www.nflrc.hawaii.edu/NetWorks/NW01.
Warschauer, M. (1999). Electronic literacies: Language, culture and power in online education. Manwah, N. S: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Warschauer, M., Schetzer, H., & Meloni, C (2000). Internet for English Teaching.
Alexandria, VA: TESOL Publications.
Wen, Q. F. (1993). Advanced level English learning in China: The relationship of modifiable learner variables to learning outcomes. Hong Kong University: Unpublished doctoral thesis in
Wenden, A. (1991). Learner strategies for learner autonomy. New York: Prentice Hall.
Wenden, A. (1999). Metacognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied Linguistics, 19 (4), 515-537.
Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Oxford: Harvard University Press.
Williams, M. & Burden, R. L. (1997). Psychology for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University
范晔，(1999)，浅谈大学英语教学中的“学习者训练”[J]，《外语界》第3期。
黄月圆、顾日国，(1996)，以学生为中心，多维一体的大学英语教学法[J]，《外语教学与研究》第2期。
彭金定，(2002)，大学英语教学中的“学习者自主?问题研究[J]，《外语界》第3期。
苏晓军、王海贞、顾佩娅，(1999)，大学英语课堂教学的现状与改革[J]，《南京大学学报》增刊。
王笃勤，(2002)，大学英语自主学习能力的培养[J]，《外语界》第5期。
魏玉燕，(2002)，促进学习者自主性：外语教学新概念[J]，《外语界》第3期。
文秋芳，宋文伟，(1999)，综合素质实践课——从理论到实践[J]，《外语界》第3期。
文秋芳、乐眉云、丁言仁、王文字，(2000)，九五社科项目结项报告：英语学习者动机、观念、策略的变化规律与特点[M]。
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |