《英语专业毕业论文文献综述样例.doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《英语专业毕业论文文献综述样例.doc（22页珍藏版）》请在taowenge.com淘文阁网|工程机械CAD图纸|机械工程制图|CAD装配图下载|SolidWorks_CaTia_CAD_UG_PROE_设计图分享下载上搜索。
1、Four short words sum up what has lifted most successful individuals above the crowd: a little bit more.-author-date英语专业毕业论文文献综述样例英语专业毕业论文文献综述样例英语专业毕业论文文献综述样例参考范文1Distance LearningThis paper will summarize two articles on distance learning and give the authors views on the benefits and obstacles of i
2、mplementing 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 trad
3、itional 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
4、 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 educ
5、ation” (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 inst
6、ruction 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
7、 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 ti
8、me 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 “seve
9、n 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 standa
10、rds 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 l
11、earning 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 a very progress
12、ive 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
13、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
14、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 t
15、o 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 Pavlovs dogs: at the ding of incoming e-mails they stop what theyre doing, salivate, and rush to
16、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 c
17、laims 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
18、 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
19、possible in case of emergency or a teachers 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 pro
20、cess 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
21、 who takes the class can view the others work. ESL students dont 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 dont enhance learning according to b
22、rain-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). Its very important to discuss with students how they feel about technology and on
23、line 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 but it will take time. As Mark Milliron has said “lets not let new technology get in the way of lea
24、rning” (2004). Lets 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 GenderWith the general growth of feminist work in many academic fields, it is hardly surprising that the relationship between language an
25、d 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
26、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 soc
27、ial 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. Lakoffs (1975) pioneering work suggested that womens speech typically displa
28、yed 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).
29、While there are clearly some problems with Lakoffs work - her analysis was not based on empirical research, for example, and the automatic equation of subordinate with weak is problematicthe emphasis on dominance has understandably remained at the centre of much of this work. Research has shown how
30、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 studi
31、es, 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 mens and womens features of langua
32、ge. 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 c
33、onversational 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
34、emphasizing the need to see womens 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 evident that these two approaches are by no means mutually exclusive. While it is important on the one hand
35、, 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 womens linguistic behavior as if it existed outside social relations of power. As Cameron, McAlinden and OLeary (1988) ask, “Can it be co
36、incidence 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 mens and womens speech; operates with a complex und
37、erstanding of power and gender relationships (so that womens 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 mens speech as the norm and womens speech as different); aims not only to describe and explain but also to change language and social relationships. -