英语专业毕业论文文献综述样例
excel2004-银行招聘考试试题
精品文档
英语专业毕业论文文献综述样例
参考范文1
Distance Learning
This paper will
summarize two articles on distance learning and
give the
author’s views on the benefits and
obstacles of implementing distance-learning in
a junior and senior high school learning
environment.
Jeannette McDonald, in her
article: Is “As good as face-to-face” as good as
it gets? (2002), raises a very important
question as to whether “[the] goal [of
online
learning should be] to meet existing standards of
traditional education”
(McDonald, 2002) or
“has distance learning, and especially online
education opened
the door to enhanced
strategies in teaching and learning” (McDonald,
2002)? Online
learning may just be “doing
different things” (McDonald, 2002). What are these
different things? Jeannette McDonald claims
that “distance education can be a
frontier for
new methods of communication giving rise to
innovative teaching and
learning practices
that may not be possible in traditional, place-
bound education”
(2002). The article discusses
both the positive and “potential negative impacts
of online education” (McDonald, 2002).
There are many benefits to using online
distance learning environments. Online
education is available “anyplace, anytime
[for] global communities of learners
based on
shared interests” (McDonald, 2002). Jeannette
McDonald claims that “online
education [with
its] group-based instruction [and] computer
mediated communication
(CMC) provides an
opportunity for new development and understanding
in teaching
and learning” (2002). CMC
encourages “collaborative learning [by not
providing]
cues regarding appearance, race,
gender, education, or social status bestowing a
sort of anonymity to participants” (McDonald,
2002). Distance also “permits the
expression
of emotion (both positive and negative) and
promotes discussion that
normally would be
inhibited. [Yet, this same] text-based [positive
aspect of online
learning], makes online
education more cumbersome and therefore takes more
time
than face-to-face learning. [In
addition,] the sheer bulk of messages can be
overwhelming” (McDonald, 2002). The learner
only has the written text and no other
“non-
verbal” (McDonald, 2002) cues. This may confuse
the learner and cause
“misunderstanding”
(McDonald, 2002). The article lists the “seven
principles of
good practice in undergraduate
education” (McDonald, 2004) published in 1987 by
the American Association of Higher Education
Bulletin. Jeannette McDonald claims
that
“online education has the potential to achiever
all of these practices” (2002).
There is a
need for quality and standards for distance
learning. “In April 2000,
the institute of
Higher Education Policy produced a study with 24
benchmarks for
the success in Internet-based
distance education” (The Institute for Higher
Education Policy, 2000).
Although
Jeannette McDonald feels that there are “biases
against distance
learning programs” (2002),
her recommendation is “to take advantage of the
potential of online education [by striving] to
understand the technology and how
it affects
human communication and interaction” (2002).
“In the road to dotcom in education” (2004),
Mark David Milliron deals with
。
1
欢迎下载
精品文档
a very
progressive idea that suggests educators “slow …
down from [their] busy
lives… to be free to
focus first on connecting with learners and
connecting them
to learning … before [they]
end up feeling like [they] are no longer using
technology, but are being used by it”
(Milliron, 2004). He compares education to
a
highway where educators are faced with many “road
hazards”. Mark Milliron claims
that “looking
for road hazards on a journey takes concentration
[which] is not often
practiced by those with a
need for speed or those caught up in their
competitive
drives” (2004). He gives examples
of how ridiculous people are becoming when they
“strive to stay connected [to cell phones and
e-mails at the price of] deep personal
connections with [their] family members and
friends” (Milliron, 2004). He quotes
Dr.
Edward Hallowell, who ironically states “how many
electronic connections we
have today, yet how
hard it is for us to form authentic and deep
personal
connections” (Milliron, 2004). Mark
Milliron gives an excellent comparison of how
technology has blinded people when he says
that they are becoming “more and more
like
Pavlov’s dogs: at the ding of incoming e-mails
they stop what they’re doing,
salivate, and
rush to the screen” (2004). There is pressure to
keep up with the
times as well as “a cost-of-
entry issue regarding technology in education.
Without
a certain level of technology services
and learning options, many students will
not
consider attending [a certain] institution”
(Milliron, 2004). Mark Milliron
claims that
“any technology has to prove that it will
ultimately improve or expand
learning” (2004).
This will come about if educators “slow down, look
around, and
get on the road to DotCalm- a
place [to] thoughtfully engage and explore all
aspects
of technology, good, bad, or
indifferent; …a place with mindful focus on the
people
and passions that make life worth
living” (Milliron, 2004).
The author of this
paper has been trying to implement distance
learning in
both junior and high school
environments for the past year. The school has
added
a platform called “Britannica” to make
online learning possible in case of emergency
or a teacher’s strike. The students are not
willing to take the time to go in and
look up
homework assignments and other online learning
activities. The author keeps
reminding
students to add their e-mail addresses to the form
but they are unwilling
to cooperate. The
process is very slow with little results. Some
teachers have made
these online lessons
compulsory for their students. ESL students shy
away from
online classes. They have expressed
fear of having their work viewed by others.
Every student has to login to the school site
but within a classroom, everyone who
takes the
class can view the other’s work. ESL students
don’t see the advantage
of learning by
sharing. Should online learning be an issue of
control or should
students be convinced of its
value as an authentic learning tool? Fear and a
threatening environment don’t enhance learning
according to brain-based learning
research.
“How students ‘feel’ about a learning situation
determines the amount
of attention they devote
to it”(Sousa, 1998). “Positive emotions ensure
that
learning will be retained” (Lackney,
2002). It’s very important to discuss with
students how they feel about technology and
online learning so that they feel good
about
what they are doing. The author feels that the
process of implementing online
distance
learning is a slow and delicate one. Change will
eventually come about
。
2
欢迎下载
精品文档
but it will take time. As Mark
Milliron has said “[let’s not let] new technology
…
get in the way of learning” (2004). Let’s
calm down as we “focus first on connecting
with learners [and only then begin] connecting
them to learning” (Milliron, 2004).
参考范文2
Language and Gender
With the general growth of
feminist work in many academic fields, it is
hardly
surprising that the relationship
between language and gender has attracted
considerable attention in recent years. In an
attempt to go beyond “folk linguistic”
assumptions about how men and women use
language (the assumption that women are
“talkative”, for example), studies have
focused on anything from different
syntactical, phonological or lexical uses of
language to aspects of conversation
analysis,
such as topic nomination and control,
interruptions and other interact
ional
features. While some research has focused only on
the description of
differences, other work has
sought to show how linguistic differences both
reflect
and reproduce social difference.
Accordingly, Coates (1988) suggests that research
on language and gender can be divided into
studies that focus on dominance and those
that
focus on difference.
Much of the earlier work
emphasized dominance. Lakoff’s (1975) pioneering
work
suggested that women’s speech typically
displayed a range of features, such as tag
questions, which marked it as inferior and
weak. Thus, she argued that the type
of
subordinate speech learned by a young girl “will
later be an excuse others use
to keep her in a
demeaning position, to refuse to treat her
seriously as a human
being” (1975, p.5). While
there are clearly some problems with Lakoff’s work
- her
analysis was not based on empirical
research, for example, and the automatic
equation of subordinate with ‘weak’ is
problematic－the emphasis on dominance has
understandably remained at the centre of much
of this work. Research has shown how
men
nominated topics more, interrupted more often,
held the floor for longer, and
so on (see, for
example, Zimmerman and West, 1975). The chief
focus of this approach,
then, has been to show
how patterns of interaction between men and women
reflect
the dominant position of men in
society.
Some studies, however, have taken a
different approach by looking not so much
at
power in mixed-sex interactions as at how same-sex
groups produce certain types
of interaction.
In a typical study of this type, Maltz and Borker
(1982) developed
lists of what they described
as men’s and women's features of language. They
argued
that these norms of interaction were
acquired in same-sex groups rather than
mixed-
sex groups and that the issue is therefore one of
(sub-)cultural
miscommunication rather than
social inequality. Much of this research has
focused
on comparisons between, for example,
the competitive conversational style of men
and the cooperative conversational style of
women.
While some of the more popular work of
this type, such as Tannen (1987), lacks
a
critical dimension, the emphasis on difference has
nevertheless been valuable
in fostering
research into gender subgroup interactions and in
emphasizing the need
to see women’s language
use not only as ‘subordinate’ but also as a
significant
sub-cultural domain.
Although
Coates’ (1988) distinction is clearly a useful
one, it also seems
。
3
欢迎下载
精品文档
evident that these two
approaches are by no means mutually exclusive.
While it is
important on the one hand,
therefore, not to operate with a simplistic
version of
power and to consider language and
gender only in mixed-group dynamics, it is also
important not to treat women’s linguistic
behavior as if it existed outside social
relations of power. As Cameron, McAlinden and
O’Leary (1988) ask, “Can it be
coincidence
that men are aggressive and hierarchically-
organized
conversationalists, whereas women
are expected to provide conversational support?”
(p.80). Clearly, there is scope here for a
great deal more research that is based
on
empirical data of men’s and women’s speech;
operates with a complex understanding
of power
and gender relationships (so that women’s silence,
for example, can be
seen both as a site of
oppression and as a site of possible resistance);
looks
specifically at the contexts of language
use, rather than assuming broad gendered
differences; involves more work by men on
language and gender, since attempts to
understand male uses of language in terms of
difference have been few (thus running
the
danger of constructing men’s speech as the ‘norm’
and women’s speech as
‘different’); aims not
only to describe and explain but also to change
language
and social relationships.
。
4
欢迎下载