题目内容
A number of researchers have examined the variables/strategies that affect students’ learning English as a second language. This report identifies some of the learner variables/strategies used by two students in a Hong Kong Technical Institute. The instruments for data collection included observation, interviews and questionnaires. The findings are discussed and some implications highlighted.What makes a "good" language learner "good", and what makes a "poor" language learner "poor" What does this imply for the teaching of language in the Hong Kong context These are the central questions of this assignment. The existing body of research attributes the differences between language learners to learner variables and learner strategies, learner variables include such things as differences in personality, motivation, style, aptitude and age (Ellis, 1986: chap 5) and strategies refer to "techniques, approaches, or deliberate actions that students take in order to facilitate the learning and recall of both linguistic and content area information" (Chamot, 1987: 71). It is important to note here that what we are considering is not the fact that language learners do and can learn, but why there should be such variations in speed of learning, ability to use the target language, and in achieving examination grades, areas which generally lead to the classification of students as being either "good" or "poor".Learner variables and strategies have been the focus of a number of research projects, (O’Malley et al, 1985, Oxford, 1989). However, to the best of my knowledge, this area has not been researched in Hong Kong classrooms. Since I am a teacher of English working in Hong Kong, gleaning a little of what learner variables and strategies seem to work for local students seems to be a fruitful area of research.In discussing learner variables and strategies, we have to keep in mind the arbitrary nature of actually identifying these aspects. As the existing research point out, it is not possible to observe directly qualities such as aptitude, motivation and anxiety. (Oxford, 1986). We cannot look inside the mind of a language learner and find out what strategies, if any, they are using. These strategies are not visible processes. Also, as Naiman and his colleagues (1978) point out, no single learning strategy, cognitive style or learner characteristic is sufficient to explain success in language learning. The factors must be considered simultaneously to discover how they interact to affect success of failure in particular language learning situation.Bearing these constraints in mind, the aim of this assignment is to develop two small scale studies of the language learners attempting to gain an overall idea of what strategies are in use and what variables seem to make a difference to Hong Kong students. The main point of paragraph 2 is （）
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
By far the most common difficulty in study is simple failure to get down to regular concentrated work. This difficulty is much greater for those who do not work to a plan and have no regular routine of study. Many students muddle along, doing a hit of this subject or that, as the mood takes them, or letting their set work pile up until the last possible moment.Few students work to a set time-table. They say that if they did construct a timetable for themselves they would not keep to it, or would have to alter it constantly, since they can never predict from one day to the next what their activities will be. No doubt some temperaments take much more kindly to a regular routine than others. There are many who shy away from the self-regimentatign of a weekly time-table, and dislike being tied clown to a definite programme of work. Many able students claim that they work in cycles. When they become interested in a topic they work on it intensively for three or four days at a time. On other days they avoid work completely. It has to be confessed that we do not fully understand the complexities of the motivation to work. Most people over 25 years of age have become conditioned to a work routine, and the majority of really productive workers set aside regular hours for the more important aspects of their work. The "tough-minded" school of workers is usually very contemptuous of the idea that good work can only be done spontaneously, under the influence of inspiration.Those who believe that they need only work and study as the fit takes them have a mistaken belief either in their own talent or in the value of "freedom". Freedom from restraint and discipline leads to unhappiness rather than to "self-expression" or "personality development". Our society insists on regular habits, timekeeping and punctuality, and whether we like it or not, if we mean to make our way in society we have to comply with its demands. The most widespread problem in applying oneself to study is that of（）
This week marks the 10th anniversary of the Alar apple scare, in which many American consumers were driven into a panic following the release of a report by an environmental organization claiming that apples containing the chemical Alar posed a serious health threat to preschoolers. The report was disseminated through a PR (Problem Report) campaign and bypassed any legitimate form of scientific peer re view. Introduced to the American public by CBS "60 Minutes," the unsubstantiated claims in the report led some school districts to remove apples from their school lunch programs and unduly frightened conscientious parents trying to develop good eating habits for their children.Last month, Consumers Union released a report wanting consumers of the perils of consuming many fruits and vegetables that frequently contained "unsafe" levels of pesticide residues. This was especially true for children, they claimed, lake its predecessor 10 years earlier, the Consumers Union report received no legitimate scientific peer review and the public’s first exposure to it was through news coverage.Not only does such reporting potentially drive children for consuming healthful fruits and vegetables, the conclusions were based on a misleading interpretation of what constitutes a "safe" level of exposure. Briefly, the authors used values known as the "chronic reference doses," set by the U.S. environmental Protection Agency, as their barometers of safely. Used appropriately, thee levels represent the maximum amount of pesticide that could be consumed daily for life without concern. For a 70-year lifetime, for example, consumers would have to ingest this ’average amount of pesticide every day for more than 25,000 days. It is clear, as the report points out, that there are days on which kids may be exposed to more; it is also clear that there are many more days when exposure is zero. Had the authors more appropriately calculated the cumulative exposures for which the safety standards axe meant to apply, there would have been no risks and no warnings.Parents should feel proud, rather than guilty, of providing fruits and vegetables for their children. It is well established that a diet rich in such foods decreases the risk of heart disease and cancer. Such benefits dramatically overwhelm the theoretical risks of tiny amounts of pesticides in food. So keep serving up the peaches, apples, squash, grapes and pears. The last month report parallels that on the Alar apple scare in that （）
This week marks the 10th anniversary of the Alar apple scare, in which many American consumers were driven into a panic following the release of a report by an environmental organization claiming that apples containing the chemical Alar posed a serious health threat to preschoolers. The report was disseminated through a PR (Problem Report) campaign and bypassed any legitimate form of scientific peer re view. Introduced to the American public by CBS "60 Minutes," the unsubstantiated claims in the report led some school districts to remove apples from their school lunch programs and unduly frightened conscientious parents trying to develop good eating habits for their children.Last month, Consumers Union released a report wanting consumers of the perils of consuming many fruits and vegetables that frequently contained "unsafe" levels of pesticide residues. This was especially true for children, they claimed, lake its predecessor 10 years earlier, the Consumers Union report received no legitimate scientific peer review and the public’s first exposure to it was through news coverage.Not only does such reporting potentially drive children for consuming healthful fruits and vegetables, the conclusions were based on a misleading interpretation of what constitutes a "safe" level of exposure. Briefly, the authors used values known as the "chronic reference doses," set by the U.S. environmental Protection Agency, as their barometers of safely. Used appropriately, thee levels represent the maximum amount of pesticide that could be consumed daily for life without concern. For a 70-year lifetime, for example, consumers would have to ingest this ’average amount of pesticide every day for more than 25,000 days. It is clear, as the report points out, that there are days on which kids may be exposed to more; it is also clear that there are many more days when exposure is zero. Had the authors more appropriately calculated the cumulative exposures for which the safety standards axe meant to apply, there would have been no risks and no warnings.Parents should feel proud, rather than guilty, of providing fruits and vegetables for their children. It is well established that a diet rich in such foods decreases the risk of heart disease and cancer. Such benefits dramatically overwhelm the theoretical risks of tiny amounts of pesticides in food. So keep serving up the peaches, apples, squash, grapes and pears. The wanting message about the Alar apple was given（）
This week marks the 10th anniversary of the Alar apple scare, in which many American consumers were driven into a panic following the release of a report by an environmental organization claiming that apples containing the chemical Alar posed a serious health threat to preschoolers. The report was disseminated through a PR (Problem Report) campaign and bypassed any legitimate form of scientific peer re view. Introduced to the American public by CBS "60 Minutes," the unsubstantiated claims in the report led some school districts to remove apples from their school lunch programs and unduly frightened conscientious parents trying to develop good eating habits for their children.Last month, Consumers Union released a report wanting consumers of the perils of consuming many fruits and vegetables that frequently contained "unsafe" levels of pesticide residues. This was especially true for children, they claimed, lake its predecessor 10 years earlier, the Consumers Union report received no legitimate scientific peer review and the public’s first exposure to it was through news coverage.Not only does such reporting potentially drive children for consuming healthful fruits and vegetables, the conclusions were based on a misleading interpretation of what constitutes a "safe" level of exposure. Briefly, the authors used values known as the "chronic reference doses," set by the U.S. environmental Protection Agency, as their barometers of safely. Used appropriately, thee levels represent the maximum amount of pesticide that could be consumed daily for life without concern. For a 70-year lifetime, for example, consumers would have to ingest this ’average amount of pesticide every day for more than 25,000 days. It is clear, as the report points out, that there are days on which kids may be exposed to more; it is also clear that there are many more days when exposure is zero. Had the authors more appropriately calculated the cumulative exposures for which the safety standards axe meant to apply, there would have been no risks and no warnings.Parents should feel proud, rather than guilty, of providing fruits and vegetables for their children. It is well established that a diet rich in such foods decreases the risk of heart disease and cancer. Such benefits dramatically overwhelm the theoretical risks of tiny amounts of pesticides in food. So keep serving up the peaches, apples, squash, grapes and pears. In the Alar apple scare, many Americans were frightened because （）
微信支付 
支付宝支付