对人教版Go for It（2013）及外研版New standard English（2012）阅读材料可读性及内容特

发布时间：2018-06-23 07:22

本文选题：教材评价 + 阅读材料　；参考：《杭州师范大学》2016年硕士论文

【摘要】：阅读在英语教学和学习中占有十分重要的地位。阅读材料是教师阅读教学的主要工具及学生学习的主要资源。随着我国基础教育课程改革的不断深入,各种版本的教材涌入市场。在这种情况下,科学地评价教材对提高教材使用率和提高教学质量具有重要意义。本研究选取了浙江省内使用的人教版的Go for It (2013)和外研版的New Standard English (2012)两套教材中的阅读材料作为研究对象进行了对比研究,研究主要回答以下几个问题：两套教材中阅读材料的可读性的特点以及共性和区别是什么?两套教材中阅读材料的内容在话题和体裁方面的各自特点以及共性和区别是什么?教师和学生对所使用的教材中阅读材料的态度是什么?通过对这些问题的探讨,最终得出结论。为了回答以上问题,本研究采用了文献研究法、对比研究法、问卷调查法以及个人访谈法。通过文献研究法,发现现有研究的不足,确定本研究的出发点。对比研究法是对两套教材阅读部分的特点进行客观分析和对比,发现不同之处。问卷调查法是通过对教师和学生的进行问卷调查,从而对两套教材中阅读部分的使用情况进行分析。个人访谈法是对问卷调查法的补充,通过与访谈对象面对面的交谈,获得研究相关的信息。研究发现,两套教材的阅读材料各有优缺点。在可读性方面,人教版Go for It (2013)的阅读材料总体上较外研版New Standard English (2012)的阅读材料更难。在内容方面,两套教材的阅读材料在话题的选择和分布上非常相似,都涵盖了新课标所提出的24个话题；两套教材的阅读材料在题材上都提供了大量的描述文和说明文,记叙文和议论文相对较少,在应用文方面,人教版Go for It(2013)则提供了更多类型的应用文。从问卷结果来看,使用人教版的学生仅在话题方面较使用外研版的学生表现出更高的满意度,而教师的态度则相反；在可读性、体裁方面,使用外研版的学生表现出了更高的满意度；教师的态度与学生较为一致。针对以上发现,在文章最后作者分别给使用相关教材的教师提出了建议。
[Abstract]:Reading plays an important role in English teaching and learning. Reading material is the main tool of teacher's reading teaching and the main resource of student's study. With the deepening of basic education curriculum reform in China, various versions of textbooks pour into the market. In this case, the scientific evaluation of teaching materials is of great significance to improve the utilization rate of teaching materials and improve the teaching quality. In this study, we chose the reading materials of go for it (2013) and New Standard English (2012), which are used in Zhejiang Province, as the research objects. The study mainly answers the following questions: what are the characteristics, commonalities and differences of the readability of the reading materials in the two sets of textbooks? What are the characteristics, commonalities and differences of the content of the reading materials in the two sets of textbooks in terms of topic and genre? What are the attitudes of teachers and students to the reading materials used in the textbooks? Through the discussion of these problems, the final conclusion is drawn. In order to answer the above questions, this study adopts literature research, comparative study, questionnaire survey and personal interview. Through the method of literature research, the deficiency of the existing research is found, and the starting point of this study is determined. Contrastive research is an objective analysis and comparison of the characteristics of the reading parts of the two sets of textbooks. The method of questionnaire is to analyze the use of the reading part of the two sets of teaching materials through the questionnaire survey of teachers and students. The method of personal interview is a supplement to the method of questionnaire, through face-to-face conversation with the interviewees, the relevant information of the research is obtained. The study found that the two sets of reading materials have advantages and disadvantages. In terms of readability, the reading material of go for it (2013) is more difficult than that of New Standard English (2012). In terms of content, the reading materials of the two sets of textbooks are very similar in the choice and distribution of topics, covering 24 topics proposed by the new curriculum standard, and the reading materials of the two sets of textbooks provide a large number of descriptive and narrative texts on the subject matter. Narratives and argumentations are relatively few. In terms of practical writing, go for it (2013) provides more types of practical writing. According to the results of the questionnaire, the students who used the teacher-taught version showed higher satisfaction with the topic than the students who used the extrapolation version, while the teachers showed the opposite attitude in terms of readability and genres. The students who use the foreign research version showed higher satisfaction; the teachers' attitude was more consistent with the students. In view of the above findings, the author puts forward some suggestions for teachers who use the relevant textbooks at the end of the article.
【学位授予单位】：杭州师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：G633.41

【相似文献】