想象教学法对英语口语教学的影响
|
摘要
在英语教学中,一直倡导“人本主义”的教学理念,强调教学活动中考虑学生的学习情感、学习策略,以最多限度的给与学生参与到教学活动的机会,从而找出课程需要解决的问题答案以及习得课上知识。但纵观现今的教学实践,教学活动中的“人本”特色少之又少,以英语口语教学为例,口语教学的基本模式,一直被认为是观察-模仿-得到,而在这个过程当中,学生仍然是在按照教师所要求的内容进行死记硬背式的学习,把句式、表达烂熟于心,从而实现日后的出口成章。在这个过程中,学生没有受到半点儿的启发与刺激,富有逻辑的教学思想却有了自相矛盾的教学体现,语言的创造却成为了复制他人语言成果的重复劳动。乔姆斯基认为,语言之所以是人类的标志符号之一,原因就在于语言的创造性,人类的创造性就完全的反映在了语言中,所以,语言不是重复的机械作业,而是个具有创新的人类思想的作品。那么在实际的教学活动中,如何在人本主义的精神指引下,可否使学生解脱于当下机械的口语学习模式,而有引导的去观察语言的意义呢?
从Chomsky、Pinker再到A.P.Martinich、Carruthers,西方语言学家、哲学家一直对于语言的作用进行了几世纪的探讨。但唯一确定的意义从一开始就没有变过,那就是:语言是用来交际的。不再考虑大师们对于语言剖析的多么准确,语言的本意已确定无疑的摆在面前。即是交际功能,其实就是思维上的外化体现。Carruthers一早指出,语言在思维的创新中扮演着举足轻重的角色。既然语言的本质以确定,为何在现今的口语课堂上仍见得学生在苦苦背诵着老师亲手打造的文字狱?这种方式锁住的不是学生的积极性那么简单,单纯的创造性也荡然无存!那么,口语教师可否极大地调节学生的动机因素和情感参与从而使学生感受真正的语言功能,即创造性的思维重现呢?这个问题也就是这篇论文主要探讨的内容。
通过想象式的引导,可以有助于学生获得思维的重新整理,从而转变在口语表达上,这样以来口语交际能力也会有所提升。本研究的受试者共分两组,均是辽宁对外经贸学院的学生.两组学生历经3个半月的时间,通过口语想象教学法以及传统的口语教学法的对比研究,凸显出口语想象教学法的可行性。本文同样采用了实验前的预测、对比后的考核,以及课上观察,并借助书面的问卷调查和后期的面对面的谈话可以看出口语想象教学法的可操作性,最终解释并探讨本文提出的三个研究问题:第一、口语想象教学法是如何提高学生的口语表现的?第二、从教学结果来看,口语想象教学法为何会对学生的口语表现能力起到了重要作用?第三、口语教学法是如何在课堂上实现的?
通过定量分析与定性分析,最终表明,通过口语想象教学法,可以极大地提高学生参与口语学习的积极性与参与度,同时通过想象的引领最终可以实现良好的教学成果,对于口语教学实践更起到了重要的辅助作用,同时通过此法的引用,学生对于口语学习的积极性大幅提高,能力也有所改观,最重要的是学生投入课堂的积极性高了,爱说了,喜欢思考了。受试者同样对于想象口语教学法持有肯定态度。鉴于想象口语教学法的实践,本文提出了一些实施建议。
Humanism is believed to be the core teaching methodology because it could blend together the factors of students' emotions toward learning and strategies about learning, and could maximise the chances of students to be engaged into the classroom activities. It could also lead the students to the solutions to the problems in the learning process and to the successful goals. Professor, Liu Runqing (2000) suggests once that the final answers to the questions depend on the students' process of self-learning and discussion with others. However, in the contemparary English classroom, teaching activities are marked with fewer human characteristics. Take China's oral English teaching for example, the common procedure is to observe, to mimick, and to produce. Honestly speaking, in this fashion, students still memorize the phrases and sentence patterns, which are selected by humanely considerations, and communicate with others with these rote-learnt input. Students can't feel any moment of being motivated or stimulated. The teaching theory is disfigured by the contradictory teaching practice. Language is creative, not something to be attained by mechanical copies of language fragments of others. Chomsky believes that the diversity of language results from the nature of creativity of human beings when producing language. How to motivate students to learn language in the guidance of humanism and to observe what language is?
The linguistic and philosophical masters in the west such as Chomsky, Pinker, A.P. Martinich, and Carruthers have been discussing the concept of language for centuries. Meanwhile, the main idea about this puzzle has been fixed, that is, language is used to express thoughts. Carruthers (1998) pointed out that language is used for expression of thoughts. So why do students in spoken English class have to memorize the patterns selected by teachers? The teaching method like this can't free students from depressions for not being allowed to be active in class, and razes the creative nature of students. As a result, could spoken English teachers motivate students to feel what language means, that is, a reproduction of thoughts? This thesis dances around this dilemma later in the detail.
Added the imaginative teaching method to the spoken English class, teachers will ultimately motivate students to learn English speaking, and try to fulfill the learners' communicative goal. The subjects of the study were divided into two groups, who were students of Liaoning University of International Business and Economics. A half-and-three-month study conducted to show the feasibility of applying imaginative teaching option into English speaking class by comparison of imaginative teaching option with the traditional teaching method. To prove the validity of the study, a multi-method is adopted, including pre-test and pro-test, after-class interviews, class observation, and face-to-face talks with students. The three questions designed to be answered in the thesis are: (1) does imaginative teaching approach improve learners' spoken ability? (2) why can the imaginative teaching approach improve learners' spoken ability? (3) how should this teaching model be presented in the class?
Based on the quantitative and qualitative analysis, this thesis testify the truth that imaginative teaching approach could enhance the emotional factors of learners in the learning process and attract the learners to be engaged into the classroom activities. This teaching strategy convinces every English spoken teachers of its validity of application to the classroom, and amazes the students with a sign of approving relief. Also embedded in this thesis are some suggestions on imaginative teaching approach.
从Chomsky、Pinker再到A.P.Martinich、Carruthers,西方语言学家、哲学家一直对于语言的作用进行了几世纪的探讨。但唯一确定的意义从一开始就没有变过,那就是:语言是用来交际的。不再考虑大师们对于语言剖析的多么准确,语言的本意已确定无疑的摆在面前。即是交际功能,其实就是思维上的外化体现。Carruthers一早指出,语言在思维的创新中扮演着举足轻重的角色。既然语言的本质以确定,为何在现今的口语课堂上仍见得学生在苦苦背诵着老师亲手打造的文字狱?这种方式锁住的不是学生的积极性那么简单,单纯的创造性也荡然无存!那么,口语教师可否极大地调节学生的动机因素和情感参与从而使学生感受真正的语言功能,即创造性的思维重现呢?这个问题也就是这篇论文主要探讨的内容。
通过想象式的引导,可以有助于学生获得思维的重新整理,从而转变在口语表达上,这样以来口语交际能力也会有所提升。本研究的受试者共分两组,均是辽宁对外经贸学院的学生.两组学生历经3个半月的时间,通过口语想象教学法以及传统的口语教学法的对比研究,凸显出口语想象教学法的可行性。本文同样采用了实验前的预测、对比后的考核,以及课上观察,并借助书面的问卷调查和后期的面对面的谈话可以看出口语想象教学法的可操作性,最终解释并探讨本文提出的三个研究问题:第一、口语想象教学法是如何提高学生的口语表现的?第二、从教学结果来看,口语想象教学法为何会对学生的口语表现能力起到了重要作用?第三、口语教学法是如何在课堂上实现的?
通过定量分析与定性分析,最终表明,通过口语想象教学法,可以极大地提高学生参与口语学习的积极性与参与度,同时通过想象的引领最终可以实现良好的教学成果,对于口语教学实践更起到了重要的辅助作用,同时通过此法的引用,学生对于口语学习的积极性大幅提高,能力也有所改观,最重要的是学生投入课堂的积极性高了,爱说了,喜欢思考了。受试者同样对于想象口语教学法持有肯定态度。鉴于想象口语教学法的实践,本文提出了一些实施建议。
Humanism is believed to be the core teaching methodology because it could blend together the factors of students' emotions toward learning and strategies about learning, and could maximise the chances of students to be engaged into the classroom activities. It could also lead the students to the solutions to the problems in the learning process and to the successful goals. Professor, Liu Runqing (2000) suggests once that the final answers to the questions depend on the students' process of self-learning and discussion with others. However, in the contemparary English classroom, teaching activities are marked with fewer human characteristics. Take China's oral English teaching for example, the common procedure is to observe, to mimick, and to produce. Honestly speaking, in this fashion, students still memorize the phrases and sentence patterns, which are selected by humanely considerations, and communicate with others with these rote-learnt input. Students can't feel any moment of being motivated or stimulated. The teaching theory is disfigured by the contradictory teaching practice. Language is creative, not something to be attained by mechanical copies of language fragments of others. Chomsky believes that the diversity of language results from the nature of creativity of human beings when producing language. How to motivate students to learn language in the guidance of humanism and to observe what language is?
The linguistic and philosophical masters in the west such as Chomsky, Pinker, A.P. Martinich, and Carruthers have been discussing the concept of language for centuries. Meanwhile, the main idea about this puzzle has been fixed, that is, language is used to express thoughts. Carruthers (1998) pointed out that language is used for expression of thoughts. So why do students in spoken English class have to memorize the patterns selected by teachers? The teaching method like this can't free students from depressions for not being allowed to be active in class, and razes the creative nature of students. As a result, could spoken English teachers motivate students to feel what language means, that is, a reproduction of thoughts? This thesis dances around this dilemma later in the detail.
Added the imaginative teaching method to the spoken English class, teachers will ultimately motivate students to learn English speaking, and try to fulfill the learners' communicative goal. The subjects of the study were divided into two groups, who were students of Liaoning University of International Business and Economics. A half-and-three-month study conducted to show the feasibility of applying imaginative teaching option into English speaking class by comparison of imaginative teaching option with the traditional teaching method. To prove the validity of the study, a multi-method is adopted, including pre-test and pro-test, after-class interviews, class observation, and face-to-face talks with students. The three questions designed to be answered in the thesis are: (1) does imaginative teaching approach improve learners' spoken ability? (2) why can the imaginative teaching approach improve learners' spoken ability? (3) how should this teaching model be presented in the class?
Based on the quantitative and qualitative analysis, this thesis testify the truth that imaginative teaching approach could enhance the emotional factors of learners in the learning process and attract the learners to be engaged into the classroom activities. This teaching strategy convinces every English spoken teachers of its validity of application to the classroom, and amazes the students with a sign of approving relief. Also embedded in this thesis are some suggestions on imaginative teaching approach.
引文
Aitchison, Jean. 2002. Animals that try to talk. In the articulate mammal: an introduction to psycholinguistics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 24-34.
Anne-Marie Dooner. 2004. Imagination in the middle years: developing application strategies to enhance student learning.
Breen, M.P. and Candlin, C.N. 1985. The communicative curriculum in language teaching. London: Longman.
Brown, H. D. 2002. Motivation. In principles of language leaning and teaching. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research,152-157.
Bruner, J. 1986. Psychological reality. In actual minds, possible worlds. Massachusetts: Harvard College Press, 89-92.
Carnegie Dale. 2009. How famous speakers prepared their addresses. In how to develop self-confidence & influence people by public speaking. Beijing: Central Compilation & Translation Press, 62-68.
Carruthers Peter, and Boucher Jill. 1998. Thinking in language? Evolution and a modularist possibility in language and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 94-100.
Catherine Scott, and Steve Dinham. 2004. Creative teaching as adaptive expertise in international conference on imagination and education.
Cedric Cullingford. 2008. A brief outline of the talk given to the conference on imagination and education, Vancouver 16-19.
Chomsky Norm. 1986. Concepts of language. In knowledge of language: its nature, origin, and use. (ed.) Ruth Nanda Anshen, Westport.: Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc., 18-31.
Crookes Graham, and Schmidt, R.W. 1991. Motivation: reopening the research agenda in language learning. (41):469-512.
Curran, C.A. 1976. Counseling-learning in second languages. Apple River, Ill: Apple River Press. David Ausubel. 1960. The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of meaningful verbal material. Journal of educational psychology. (51): 267-272.
Dewey John. 1948. Political philosophy. In philosophy of meaning, knowledge and value in the twentieth century. (ed.) Canfield John V., New York: Routledge, 196-197.
Egan Kieran. 1985. Imagination and learning. Teachers college record. 87, (2):155-167. Erikson, E.H. 1963. Childhood and society. New York: Norton.
Farb Peter. 1973. Man at the mercy of language in a course of western philosophy of language. (ed.) Cheng Xiaoguang, Dalian: Liaoning University Press, 471-486.
Fauconnier, G. 1985. Pragmatic functions and images. In mental spaces: aspects of meaning constructionin natural language. Edinburgh: Cambridge University Press, 16-25.
Fauconnier, G. and Turner, M. 2002. The age of form and the age of imagination. In the way we think: conceptual blending and the mind's hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books, 3-10.
Fauconnier, G. and Turner, M. 1998. Conceptual integration networks in cognitive science, 22, (2): 133-187.
Gardmer, R. 1985. Social psychology and second language learning: the role of attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.
Gardner, R.C. 1992. Attitudes and motivation in second language learning. In bilingualism, multiculturalism, and second language learning. (ed.) Reynolds A.G., New Jersey: Lawrence Eribaum associates, Inc., 43-55.
Gardner, R.C. and Lambert, W.E. 1972. Attitudes and motivation in second-language learning. Mass: Newbury House.
Gilbert Ryle. 1949. The concept of mind. New York: Barnes and Noble, 25-61.
Graham, C.R.1984. Beyond integrative motivation: the development and influence of assimilative motivation. Paper of the TESOL convention.
Gredler, M.E. 1996. Jean Piaget's cognitive development theory. In learning and institution: theory into practice. Prentice Hall College, 210-215.
Gunter, M.A., Estes, T.H. and Schwab, J. 1995. The resolution of conflict model. In instruction: a model approach. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 230-235.
Hamachek, D.E. 1977. Humanistic psychology: theoretical-philosophical framework and implications for teaching. In handbook on teaching educational psychology. (ed.) D.j. Treffinger, J. D., R.E.Ripple, New York: Academic Press, 139-160.
Harter, S. 1981. A new self-report scale of intrinsic versus extrinsic orientations in the classroom: motivational and informational components. Development psychology, 17,(3): 300-312.
http://www.dulwichcentre.com.au
http://www.ierg.net
http://www.mentalspaces.net
Irene Percival. 2003. Time-travel days how far can imagination take you? A workshop presented at the conference on imagination and education.
Ivor Davies. 1976. Objectives in curriculum design. England: McGraw-hill, 125-126.
Kathryn Patten. 2004. Neuropedagogy: imagining the learning brain. Doctoral thesis of IERG conference. Simon Fraser University.
Khaled Hasan Moh'd Al Arjah. 2004. Effect of imaginative teaching on achievement and retention of math information for grade nine students at UNRWA schools in Nablus area. M.A. Thesis, An-Najah National University, Nablus, Palestine.
Kieran Egan, Calder Tannis, Stewart Kym, Judson Gillian, and Warburton Jean. 2008. What isimaginative education? in July 2008-achieving educational goals with imagination.
Kelly, G. 1955. The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Norton.
Krathwohl, D.R. and Bloom, B.S. and Masis, B.B. 1964. Taxonomy of educational objectives: handbook II: affective domain. New York: David McKay.
Lerner R.M. 2002. Thinking. In concepts and theories of human development. New Jersey: Lawrence Erilbaum Associates Inc., 373-375.
Littlewood, W. 1981. Communicative language teaching: an introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maria do Ceu Roldao. 2003. How useful is imagination? In international conference on imagination and education.
Mark Frein. 2003. Understanding and revising Egan's conception of mind in 2003 proceeds on imagination and education.
Maslow, A.H. 1970. Motivation and personality. New York: Van Nostrand.
Oxford R., and Shearin, J. 1994. Language learning motivation: expanding the theoretical framework. Modern Language Journey. 78, (1) : 12-28.
Pamela A. T. 2004. Transforming imaginations into just realities: preservice teachers make real differences with their multicultural education course service-learning project in 2th international conference on imagination and education.
Piaget, Jean. 2000. Piaget's theory. In Childhood cognitive development: the essential readings. (ed.) Kang Lee, Oxford: Blakwell Publishers Ltd., 39-40.
Pstsy M. Lightbown and Nins Spada. 2006. Factors affecting second language learning. In How languages are learned (revised edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 49-68.
Rogers, Carl R. 1983. Freedom to learn for the eighties. Columbus: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company.
Skehan, P. 1991. Individual differences in second language learning. In studies in second language acquisition. London: Edward Arnold. 13,(2):275-298.
Spolsky Bernard. 1970. Linguistics and language pedagogy-application or implications in monograph on languages and linguistics. Report of the 20th annual round table meeting, Georgetown University.
Stern, H.H. 1983. Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stewart Kym. 2007. Imagining media education in a new way in 5th international conference on imagination and education.
Sweetser, E. 1996. Mental spaces and the grammar of conditional constructions. In spaces, worlds, and grammar. (ed.) Fauconnier , G.and E. Sweetser, Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
Tang Kwok-Chun. 2003. Imagination in teaching and learning of directed numbers: two Chinese examples in 2003 proceeds on imagination and education.
Trevor Davies. 2000. Confidence! Its role in the creative teaching and learning of design and technology. Journey of technology education. 12, (1):18-31.
Williams Marion and Robert L. Burden. 2000. Further schools of thought in psychology: humanism and social interactionism. Beijing: Foreign Teaching and Research, 30-45.
Wittgenstein Ludwig. 1994. Thinking. In the wittgenstein reader. (ed.) Anthony Kenny, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 110-114.
成晓光. 2006.西方语言哲学教程.大连:辽宁师范大学出版.
范立云. 2000.超级学习法2000.中国戏剧出版社,42-50.
何思谦. 1987.小学语文教学“引趣”十例.新教学法集锦,338-342.
黄希庭译. 2000.认知心理学.北京:中国轻工业出版社.
林展蓉. 2001.想象在《展望未来》教学中的运用.英语课程与素质教育,113-117.
刘红莉,周瑜. 2007.情景教学法:英语教学探索之路.中国科技信息(9):213-214.
刘润清. 1999.论大学英语教学.北京:外语教学与研究出版社.
王初明. 1989.中国学生的外语学习模式.外语教学与研究.(4):47-52。
王全志,孟祥芝等译. 2004.孩子们:儿童心理发展.北京:北京大学出版社.
徐宝琴. 2009.语文想象教学培养学生审美能力探析.中学课程辅导. (13):42-43.
殷炳江. 2003.小学生心理健康教育.北京:人民教育出版社.
张富洪. 2003.研究性学习与学生创新潜能的挖掘.辽宁教育研究(8):64-66.
郑钢等译. 2004.思想与行为的认识之路.北京:中国轻工业出版社.
Anne-Marie Dooner. 2004. Imagination in the middle years: developing application strategies to enhance student learning.
Breen, M.P. and Candlin, C.N. 1985. The communicative curriculum in language teaching. London: Longman.
Brown, H. D. 2002. Motivation. In principles of language leaning and teaching. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research,152-157.
Bruner, J. 1986. Psychological reality. In actual minds, possible worlds. Massachusetts: Harvard College Press, 89-92.
Carnegie Dale. 2009. How famous speakers prepared their addresses. In how to develop self-confidence & influence people by public speaking. Beijing: Central Compilation & Translation Press, 62-68.
Carruthers Peter, and Boucher Jill. 1998. Thinking in language? Evolution and a modularist possibility in language and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 94-100.
Catherine Scott, and Steve Dinham. 2004. Creative teaching as adaptive expertise in international conference on imagination and education.
Cedric Cullingford. 2008. A brief outline of the talk given to the conference on imagination and education, Vancouver 16-19.
Chomsky Norm. 1986. Concepts of language. In knowledge of language: its nature, origin, and use. (ed.) Ruth Nanda Anshen, Westport.: Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc., 18-31.
Crookes Graham, and Schmidt, R.W. 1991. Motivation: reopening the research agenda in language learning. (41):469-512.
Curran, C.A. 1976. Counseling-learning in second languages. Apple River, Ill: Apple River Press. David Ausubel. 1960. The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of meaningful verbal material. Journal of educational psychology. (51): 267-272.
Dewey John. 1948. Political philosophy. In philosophy of meaning, knowledge and value in the twentieth century. (ed.) Canfield John V., New York: Routledge, 196-197.
Egan Kieran. 1985. Imagination and learning. Teachers college record. 87, (2):155-167. Erikson, E.H. 1963. Childhood and society. New York: Norton.
Farb Peter. 1973. Man at the mercy of language in a course of western philosophy of language. (ed.) Cheng Xiaoguang, Dalian: Liaoning University Press, 471-486.
Fauconnier, G. 1985. Pragmatic functions and images. In mental spaces: aspects of meaning constructionin natural language. Edinburgh: Cambridge University Press, 16-25.
Fauconnier, G. and Turner, M. 2002. The age of form and the age of imagination. In the way we think: conceptual blending and the mind's hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books, 3-10.
Fauconnier, G. and Turner, M. 1998. Conceptual integration networks in cognitive science, 22, (2): 133-187.
Gardmer, R. 1985. Social psychology and second language learning: the role of attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.
Gardner, R.C. 1992. Attitudes and motivation in second language learning. In bilingualism, multiculturalism, and second language learning. (ed.) Reynolds A.G., New Jersey: Lawrence Eribaum associates, Inc., 43-55.
Gardner, R.C. and Lambert, W.E. 1972. Attitudes and motivation in second-language learning. Mass: Newbury House.
Gilbert Ryle. 1949. The concept of mind. New York: Barnes and Noble, 25-61.
Graham, C.R.1984. Beyond integrative motivation: the development and influence of assimilative motivation. Paper of the TESOL convention.
Gredler, M.E. 1996. Jean Piaget's cognitive development theory. In learning and institution: theory into practice. Prentice Hall College, 210-215.
Gunter, M.A., Estes, T.H. and Schwab, J. 1995. The resolution of conflict model. In instruction: a model approach. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 230-235.
Hamachek, D.E. 1977. Humanistic psychology: theoretical-philosophical framework and implications for teaching. In handbook on teaching educational psychology. (ed.) D.j. Treffinger, J. D., R.E.Ripple, New York: Academic Press, 139-160.
Harter, S. 1981. A new self-report scale of intrinsic versus extrinsic orientations in the classroom: motivational and informational components. Development psychology, 17,(3): 300-312.
http://www.dulwichcentre.com.au
http://www.ierg.net
http://www.mentalspaces.net
Irene Percival. 2003. Time-travel days how far can imagination take you? A workshop presented at the conference on imagination and education.
Ivor Davies. 1976. Objectives in curriculum design. England: McGraw-hill, 125-126.
Kathryn Patten. 2004. Neuropedagogy: imagining the learning brain. Doctoral thesis of IERG conference. Simon Fraser University.
Khaled Hasan Moh'd Al Arjah. 2004. Effect of imaginative teaching on achievement and retention of math information for grade nine students at UNRWA schools in Nablus area. M.A. Thesis, An-Najah National University, Nablus, Palestine.
Kieran Egan, Calder Tannis, Stewart Kym, Judson Gillian, and Warburton Jean. 2008. What isimaginative education? in July 2008-achieving educational goals with imagination.
Kelly, G. 1955. The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Norton.
Krathwohl, D.R. and Bloom, B.S. and Masis, B.B. 1964. Taxonomy of educational objectives: handbook II: affective domain. New York: David McKay.
Lerner R.M. 2002. Thinking. In concepts and theories of human development. New Jersey: Lawrence Erilbaum Associates Inc., 373-375.
Littlewood, W. 1981. Communicative language teaching: an introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maria do Ceu Roldao. 2003. How useful is imagination? In international conference on imagination and education.
Mark Frein. 2003. Understanding and revising Egan's conception of mind in 2003 proceeds on imagination and education.
Maslow, A.H. 1970. Motivation and personality. New York: Van Nostrand.
Oxford R., and Shearin, J. 1994. Language learning motivation: expanding the theoretical framework. Modern Language Journey. 78, (1) : 12-28.
Pamela A. T. 2004. Transforming imaginations into just realities: preservice teachers make real differences with their multicultural education course service-learning project in 2th international conference on imagination and education.
Piaget, Jean. 2000. Piaget's theory. In Childhood cognitive development: the essential readings. (ed.) Kang Lee, Oxford: Blakwell Publishers Ltd., 39-40.
Pstsy M. Lightbown and Nins Spada. 2006. Factors affecting second language learning. In How languages are learned (revised edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 49-68.
Rogers, Carl R. 1983. Freedom to learn for the eighties. Columbus: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company.
Skehan, P. 1991. Individual differences in second language learning. In studies in second language acquisition. London: Edward Arnold. 13,(2):275-298.
Spolsky Bernard. 1970. Linguistics and language pedagogy-application or implications in monograph on languages and linguistics. Report of the 20th annual round table meeting, Georgetown University.
Stern, H.H. 1983. Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stewart Kym. 2007. Imagining media education in a new way in 5th international conference on imagination and education.
Sweetser, E. 1996. Mental spaces and the grammar of conditional constructions. In spaces, worlds, and grammar. (ed.) Fauconnier , G.and E. Sweetser, Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
Tang Kwok-Chun. 2003. Imagination in teaching and learning of directed numbers: two Chinese examples in 2003 proceeds on imagination and education.
Trevor Davies. 2000. Confidence! Its role in the creative teaching and learning of design and technology. Journey of technology education. 12, (1):18-31.
Williams Marion and Robert L. Burden. 2000. Further schools of thought in psychology: humanism and social interactionism. Beijing: Foreign Teaching and Research, 30-45.
Wittgenstein Ludwig. 1994. Thinking. In the wittgenstein reader. (ed.) Anthony Kenny, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 110-114.
成晓光. 2006.西方语言哲学教程.大连:辽宁师范大学出版.
范立云. 2000.超级学习法2000.中国戏剧出版社,42-50.
何思谦. 1987.小学语文教学“引趣”十例.新教学法集锦,338-342.
黄希庭译. 2000.认知心理学.北京:中国轻工业出版社.
林展蓉. 2001.想象在《展望未来》教学中的运用.英语课程与素质教育,113-117.
刘红莉,周瑜. 2007.情景教学法:英语教学探索之路.中国科技信息(9):213-214.
刘润清. 1999.论大学英语教学.北京:外语教学与研究出版社.
王初明. 1989.中国学生的外语学习模式.外语教学与研究.(4):47-52。
王全志,孟祥芝等译. 2004.孩子们:儿童心理发展.北京:北京大学出版社.
徐宝琴. 2009.语文想象教学培养学生审美能力探析.中学课程辅导. (13):42-43.
殷炳江. 2003.小学生心理健康教育.北京:人民教育出版社.
张富洪. 2003.研究性学习与学生创新潜能的挖掘.辽宁教育研究(8):64-66.
郑钢等译. 2004.思想与行为的认识之路.北京:中国轻工业出版社.
© 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 |