交際能力、語言能力和寫作策略對英語寫作影響分析及建構(gòu)主義在中學(xué)英語詞匯教學(xué)中的運用

PAGE1-交際能力、語言能力和寫作策略對英語寫作影響分析COMMUNICATIVEABILITY,LINGUISTICABILITYANDWRITINGSTRATEGY:WHICHISCRUCIALTOENGLISHWRITING?Abstract:Thispaperaimsatdiscoveringwhatamongcommunicativeability,linguisticabilityandwritingstrategymostaffectsEnglishwritingabilityofnon-EnglishmajorsatChina'scolleges.Throughtheanalysisofcommunicativeproficienciesandlinguisticproficienciesoffoursubjectsobtainedfromtheircompositions,itisfoundoutthatneithertheircommunicativeabilitynortheirlinguisticabilityisthekeyfactor.ThustheauthorconcludesthatwritingstrategymaybecrucialtoEnglishwriting.Thepreliminaryconclusionisfurtherconfirmedwithquestionnaires.

1.IntroductionTheaimsoflanguageteachingareusuallytermedthroughthefourskills:speaking,listening,readingandwriting.(Widdowson,1978)Therefore,theimportanceofWritingiseasilyseen.However,EnglishexaminationsinChina,eitherinmiddleschoolorcollege,usedtoexcludewritingtasksintherealsense.Whatwascalledwritingintheexaminationpaperswasinfactsentencetranslationortransformationofsentencetypes.Consequently,thedevelopmentofwritingabilitywaslargelyneglectedinEnglishteachingforalongtime.SincetheintroductionofEnglishcompositionincollegeentranceexaminationpapersandinCollegeEnglishTest(CET),writinghasbecomeaconcernforteachersaswellasstudents.Muchefforthasbeenmadeinthisaspectonthepartofbothteachersandstudents.However,students'writingabilityisstillfarfromsatisfactory.Englishteachersatcollegesanduniversitiesstillcomplainabouttheunsatisfactoryprogresstheirstudentsmake.Hencetheburningquestioniswhatthemostimportantthingaffectingtheirstudents'writingabilityis.Itisforthisthatthepresentresearchisconducted.2.LiteratureReviewGebhard(1996)pointedoutthattheusefulthingsinwritingarewordchoice,useofappropriategrammar，syntax，mechanics，organizationofideasintoacoherentandcohesiveform,focusonaudienceandpurpose,andtherecursiveprocessofdiscoveringmeaning.Therefore,itisn'tdifficulttounderstandthatapieceofwriting’squalityisaffectedbythewriter’scommunicativeability,linguisticabilityandwritingstrategy.Communicativeabilitymeanshoweffectivelyonecanexpresshisideas,i.e.,howwellhecanmakehimselfunderstood.Thisincludesputtingthewordsintherightorderandusingappropriateconnectorsbetweensentences,andetc.Linguisticabilityreferstohowgrammaticallyorcorrectlyideasareexpressed，includingthecorrectuseofgrammarandtense,etc.Writingstrategy,ontheotherhand,referstoone'sabilitytofindideasrelevanttothetopicandputtheminsuchanorderastoconvincethereaders.Itmainlyincludesexaminingthetopicofthewriting,diggingformaterialsandorganizingideaseffectively.Findingoutthemostimportantfactorbetweengoodandpoorcompositionshasspawnedmuchresearch.XuWeicheng(1999)madeatextanalysis,findingsignificantdifferencesinlexicaltiesandchainsbetweengoodandpoorcompositions.Thissuggeststhatlinguisticabilitymaybeofkeyimportance.Xu'sideawaspartlyconfirmedbyYangHuizhong(2000),whoanalyzedCET-6papersandreportedthatalthoughcollegestudentsofnon-Englishmajorcouldexpressthemselvesinwriting,thereweremanygrammarmistakesintheircompositions.TengChuhong(1993)challengedthisview,showingstudentswhogot30%oreven50%morepointsthanotherstudentsingrammargothardly10%moreintheirwritingsconcludingthatlinguisticabilitywasnotthekeyfactor.ZhangAiqing(1998)concurred,reportingthatalthoughthestudentsdifferedgreatlyintheresultofthefinalexamination,nosignificantdifferencewasfoundinthemistakeratiosintheircompositions.Meanwhile,MaGuanghuiandWenQiufang(1999)undertookahugetask,duringwhichnineabilitiesandskillsofthesubjectsweretested.Theyconcludedthatexpressingknowledgeandability,i.e.,communicativeabilityisthefactorthatdirectlyaffectedthestudentswritingability.Thereisstillanotherpointofview,whichtakeswritingstrategyasthekeyfactor.ZhangZaixi(1995),afteranalyzingstudents’compositions,concludedthatthegreatestdifficultyforChinesestudentstowriteinEnglishwasthelackofmaterial.YangChunpu('1996)expressedasimilarOpinion,statingthatstudentsmustbeabletoexpandTheirtopicsentencesandjointheideasintoatextbesidesjoiningwordstosentences,sentencestoparagraphs.ThesevariedopinionshavecreatedmuchconfusionamongteachersandresearchersofEnglish.Thismayhavearisenfromthedefectsintheresearchmethodologiesused.Someresearchersrestrictedthemselvestooneaspectofwriting,whileothersmadenocomparisonbetweenthesubjects.Todecidewhichoneofthethreefactorsliesattherootofgoodandpoorcompositions,comparisonbetweenstudentsmustbemadeinallthreeaspectsofwriting,Themostconvincingcomparisonisintheformoffigures.Communicativeabilityandlinguisticabilitycanberespectivelymeasuredthroughcommunicativeproficiencyandlinguisticproficiency.Unfortunately,uptonow,nomeansisavailabletomeasurewritingstrategy.However,ifnosignificantdifferenceisfoundbetweengoodandpoorwritings,interviewsandquestionnairescansupplement,provingthatwritingstrategyiswhatmostaffectstheevaluationofstudents'Englishcomposition.Thispapercontinuesonthatpremise.3.InstrumentDesignationOne'scommunicativeandlinguisticabilitiescanrespectivelybeindicatedbyone'srespectiveproficiencies,whichmakeuseofthedistinctionofglobal/localerrors.Globalerrorsarethoseaffectingoverallsentenceorganizationsoenoughtohindercommunication.(BurtandKiparsky,1972)AccordingtoBurtandKiparsky,globalerrorschieflyfallintofourgroups:A)Wrongorderofmajorconstituents;B)commonMissing,wrongormisplacedconnectors;C)Missingcuestosignalobligatoryexception;D)Regulationofpervasivesyntacticrulestoexceptions.Ontheotherhand,theydefinedlocalerrorsasthoseaffectingsingleelementsinasentenceanddonotusuallyhindercommunication.Here,localerrorsextendtocarelessmistakesaswell,suchasmisspelling,asDulayetal(1982)suggestedusingerrorstorefertoanydeviationfromaselectednormoflanguageperformance,regardlessoftheactualcharacteristicsorcausesofthedeviation.Hendrickson(1976)firstmeasuredcommunicativeandlinguisticproficienciesbyusingBurtandKiparsky'sglobal/localerrordistinction.(Dulayetal.,1982)Todefinecommunicativeproficiency,onetakestheproportionofglobalerrorstototalerrors.Theresultedcommunicativeproficiencyindex(apercentage)reflectsone'sdegreeofeffectivecommunication.Likewise,thelocal-to-totalerrorproportionmightbeusedtodefinelinguisticproficiency.Theresultedlinguisticproficiencyindex(alsoapercentage)reflectsone'sgrammaticalcommunicativeability.AccordingtoDulay(1982),theseindexesshowwhetheralearnerhasagreatercommunicativeabilityoragreaterlinguisticability.However,onedisadvantageoftheproficienciesmeasuredinthiswayisthattheycanonlybeappliedtothesamelearner.Itisoflittlehelpwhencomparisonistobemadebetweendifferentlearners.Asthefinalproficienciesobtaineddependgreatlyonthetotalnumberoferrorsmade,theycouldbecalledrelativeproficiencies.Tocomparebetweendifferentlearners,theinstrumentofabsolutecommunicativeproficiencyandabsolutelinguisticproficiencyisforthwithpresented.Absolutecommunicativeproficiencyshouldbetheproportionoftheamountofinformationnotaffectedbyglobalerrorsandthusnothinderedfromcorrectunderstandingtothetotalamountofinformationinacontext.Astheamountofinformationisdifficult,ifnotimpossible,tomeasure,itissimplifiedastheproportionofcompletesentencesunaffectedbyglobalerrors,socorrectlyunderstandable,tothetotalnumberofcompletesentencesinatext.Coordinateclausesandellipticalsentencesaretakenascompletesentences,forheyarecompleteingrammarorinmeaning,whileclausesofotherkindsarenot.Absolutelinguisticproficiency,ontheotherhand,shouldbetheproportionofthenumberofgrammarpointsnotaffectedbylocalerrorstothenumberofthetotalgrammarpointsinatext.However,aswithinformation,thetotalofgrammarpointsisdifficulttomeasure,too.Therefore,itissimplifiedastheproportionofthenumberofwordsnotaffectedbylocalerrors(ifthesameerrorappearstwotimes,twoerrorswillberecorded;globalerrorswillalsoberecordedinlocalerrors)tothenumberoftotalwordsinatext.ThiscanfindjustificationinthefamoussayingofJonathonSwift:Theproperformofallthewordsintheirproperplacesmakestruedefinitionofastyle.Questionnairesfindoutwhichfactorstudentswith,differentlevelofwritingabilityfindmostdemandingwhenwritinginEnglish.Therefore,inthequestionnairesstudentsareaskedwhattheyfindmostdifficultwhenwritingEnglishcompositions:expression,grammar,orcomposing.Theseareexplainedtostudentspriortoasking.4.SubjectselectionThesubjectswere35mathmajorsophomoresinanormaluniversity.AllofthemhadjusttakentheCET-4inDecember.Thesubjectcompositionswereselectedfromthecompositionsintheirfinalexaminationpaper,shortlyaftertheCET.Thecompositiontaskwasassignedtogetherwithothertasksinthepaper.Studentswererequiredtowritea120-wordpassageunderthetopicof"LivinginaBigCity".Toeliminatetheinfluenceofhandwriting,thecompositionswerefirsttypedupbeforebeingdeliveredtothreeindependentraters.Beforetheratingstarts,theratersparticipatedinagroup,basedonRansdellandLevy’s(1996)”QualityWritingGuidelinesTable1:AssessmentscaleGroupDimensionDimensionscoreTotalscoreWords:choiceandarrangement10TechnicalqualitymechanicsTense1025Grammar10Spelling5ContentofessayEngaged2025Alternativepoints5Purpose/audience/tonePurposeclear510Languageandtoneappropriate/consistency5OrganizationanddevelopmentSupportandelaborate1020Senseofcompleteness5Paragraphing5StyleSentencestructureandconciseness510Daring5TheratersalsostrictlyfollowedRansdellandLevy’sassessmentprocedure.First,theratersreadallthesamplecompositionstogetanideaofholisticqualityrange.Then,ratersprovidedanalyticalratingsbyreadingthecompositions,oneatatime,foraparticulardimensionintheorderinwhichtheyarepresentedonthescale.Ratersmadeindependentjudgmentsofeachdimension,judgingwhetheracompositionwasinthetophalf,forexampleinthedimensionofwords,towards10points,orinthebottomhalf,towards1point.Next,theydecidediftheessaywasclosertoafouroraseven.Themiddlescoreof6wasassignedonlyasalastresort.AccordingtoRansdellandLevy,thisisarelativelyreliableprocedure.Basedontheraters'assessment,eachcompositiongotanaveragescore.Allwerethenclassifiedbythisscoreintofourgroups:verygood(over80points),fairlygood(79pointsto65points),fairlypoor(64to50points)andverypoor(under50points).Thenumbersofstudentsfromverygoodtoverypoorwererespectively4,15,10and6.Infact,fewcompositionscouldberegardedasverygood,forallthefourso-calledverygoodstudentsnarrowlygot80points.Thepoorestonegotonly45points.Onestudentwasthenselectedfromeachgroupforthestudyoftheirproficiencies.Twoofthemweremalestudentsandtheothertwo,female,toaddtothevalidity.Table2showstheinformationaboutthefoursubjectsandtheircompositions.Table2:InformationaboutthesubjectsandtheircompositionsSubjectSexWordsSentencesScoreClassCET-$score1M2081980Verygood84.52F1561576Fairlygood713F1301257Fairlypoor72.54M104950Verypoor765.DataCollectionFirst,alltheerrorsinthecompositionweremarkedoutandclassifiedintodifferentcategories.Differentsymbolsfordifferenterrorscategorieswerethenselectedandputaroundorundertheerrorsrespectively.Nextthenumberoferrorseachsubjectmakesiscountedandreported.Finally,thesubjects'linguisticproficiencyandcommunicativeproficiencyareinTable3.Table3:ProficiencyrecordProficienciesSub.1Sub.2Sub.3Sub.4Globalerrors2113Efficientsentences1714116Totalsentences1915129Communicativeproficiency89.5%93.3%91.7%68.9%Localerrors19161217Efficientwordotalwords208156130104Linguisticproficiency90.9%89.7%90.8%83.5%Questionnaireswerethendistributedtoallthestudents,maintainingawarenessoftheiroriginalgroup.However,thiswasdonewithoutthestudents'knowing,seasnottoaffecttheirchoice.Thequestionnairesarecollectedandthepercentagesofstudentsineachgroupwhothinkacertainfactormostaffectstheirwritingisaccounted.TheresultisreportedinTable4.Table4:Students’troubleinwritingTroublesVerygoodFairlygoodFairlypoorVerypoorTotalnumber415106Mosttroubledbyexpressing1321Proportion25%20%20%17%Mosttroubledbyaccuracy1321Proportion25%20%20%17%Mosttroubledbycomposing2974Proportion50%60%60%66%

6.DiscussionFromthedatacollectedinTable3,itisfoundthatonlySubject4,whorepresentstheverypoor,achievedacommunicativeproficiencyunder70%.Noobviousdifferenceincommunicativeproficiencybetweentheotherthreesubjectsisfound.Theyallachievedacommunicativeproficiencyofaround90%,withadiscrepancyof3.8%.AmongthemSubject1,whorepresentstheverygoodhasgotthelowest.Thisdenotesthatcommunicativeabilityusuallydoesnotdirectlyaffectthestudents'writingabilityexceptforverypoorstudents,thereforecannotbetakenaskeytomakingthedifferencebetweengoodandpoorcompositions.Meanwhile,nosignificantdifferenceinlinguisticproficiencybetweenthesubjectsisfoundeither.WhileSubject4hasgotthelowestlinguisticproficiencyof83.5%,thelinguisticproficiencyofalltheotherthreeisaround90%again,withadiscrepancywithin1.2%only.Thisshowsthatlinguisticabilitydoesnotdirectlyaffectthestudents'writingability,andthuscannotberegardedaskeytomakingthedifferencebetweengoodandpoorcompositions,either.ThisisconfirmedbytheinformationshowninTable2,wherenodirectrelationshipisfoundbetweenthescoresgainedinCET-4andtheircompositionscores.Infact,ascanbeseen,Subject4,whobelongstotheverybadincomposition,getsafairlygoodscoreof76inhisCET-4,rightnexttotheverygoodSubject1.ThedecreasingphenomenoninthenumberofwordsfromtheverygoodtotheverypoorshowninTable2maybeacoincidence.However,Subject1haswrittentwiceasmanywordsasSubject4.Thecontrastinthenumberofwordsbetweentheverygoodandtheverypoorissosharpthatitmaysuggesttheabilityofdiggingformaterial,whichbelongstowritingstrategy,isoneofthefactorsthathaveaffectedthestudents'writingability.Table4showsanincreasingproportionofstudentswhofindmosttroubledbytheproblemofcomposingastheirwritingscoresindecrease.Thissuggeststhatasthestudents'writingabilitydecreases,writingstrategyincreasinglybecomesaproblemforthem.

7.ConclusionFromthediscussionabove,itisfoundthatneithercommunicativeabilitynorlinguisticabilitycanbetakenasthekeyfactorbetweengoodandpoorcompositions.Asisstatedatthebeginningofthispaper,writingabilityconsistsofcommunicativeability,linguisticabilityandwritingstrategy.Wecanconcludethatitiswritingstrategythatliesattherootofgoodandpoorcompositions.Thesharpcontrastinthenumberofwordsbetweentheverygoodcompositionsandtheverypoorcompositionsmayserveasaproofofthisconclusion.Theconclusionisfurtherconfirmedbythephenomenonofincreasingproportionofstudentsclaimingtobemosttroubledbycomposingastheirwritingabilitydecreases.8.ImplicationsTheresultofthisresearchhasabundantimplicationincollegeEnglishteachinginChina.Firstly,aswritingstrategyisthekeytostudents'writing,teachersshouldpaymoreattentiontointroducingwritingskillstothestudents,suchasexaminingthetopic,diggingformaterialandexpandingtopicsentences,etc.Secondly,thetotal64localerrorsinthe4compositionsshowninTable3indicatethatthelinguisticabilityofthestudentsisfarfromsatisfactory.Therefore,whilefluencyhasbecomethefocusofinterestinthecurrentteachingofEnglish,teachersshouldturnattentionalittletothelinguisticaccuracy.Finally,CETscoresdon'tusuallyreflectthestudents'writingability,asseeninTable2,sostudentsmaynotbemotivatedenoughtoimprovebythepresentCET.Therefore,thedesignersofCETpapersareadvisedtoincreasetheproportionofcompositioninthetestsoastobetteritsbackwasheffectandeliminatewhatGuiShichun(1988)callsthephenomenonofhighscoreswithlowcompetence.

ReferencesBurt,MandKiparsky,C.TheGooficon:ARepairManualforEnglish.Rowley,Dulay,Hetal.LanguageTwo.Oxford:OxfordGebhard,JG.TeachingEnglishasaForeignorSecondLanguage.TheUniversityofGuiShichun.AppliedLinguistics.Changsha:HunanEducationalPress,1988Hendricson,JM."TheeffectsoferrorcorrectiontreatmentsuponadequateandaccuratecommunicationinthewrittencompositionofadultlearnersofEnglishasasecondlanguage".Doctoraldissertation.OhioStateUniversity,Columbus,1976(QuotedinDulay,etal.:1982)MaGuanghuiandWenQiufang."TherelationshipofL2learners'linguisticvariablestoL2writingability".ForeignLanguageTeachingandResearch,1999,4:34~39Ransdell,SandLevy,CM."Workingmemoryconstraintsonwritingqualityandfluency"InLevy,CMandRansdell,S(eds.)TheScienceofWriting.LaurenceErbaumAssociatesPublishers,1995TengChunhong."Englishgrammarandwriting".ForeignLanguageTeachingandResearch,1993,4:65~69Widdowson,HG.TeachingLanguageasCommunication.Oxford:OxfordXuWeicheng."CohesivetiesandchainsingoodandpoorChinesecollegestudents'composition"TeachingEnglishinChina,1999,4:17~25YangChunpu."Thoughtpatternsandteachingwritingskills".ForeignLanguagesandTheirTeaching,1996,4:47-48YangHuizhong."OnthepracticalEnglishcompetenceofChinesestudents--aviewfromananalysisofCET-6'.JournaloftheForeignLanguageWorld,2000,1:46-52ZhangAiqing."ProblemsofdeficiencyofwritingcompetenceincollegeEnglish".ForeignLanguagesandTheirTeaching,1998,12:13~15ZhangZaixi,etal."Adiscussionontheteachingofwriting".ForeignLanguageTeachingandResearch,1995,4:43~50建構(gòu)主義在中學(xué)英語詞匯教學(xué)中的運用摘要：傳統(tǒng)中學(xué)英語詞匯教學(xué)存在著思想重視不夠和教學(xué)手段單一等問題。將建構(gòu)主義運用于詞匯教學(xué)，通過建構(gòu)主義主張的歸納與演繹并重、情景學(xué)習(xí)、合作學(xué)習(xí)、參與性評價等方式，可以幫助學(xué)生主動建構(gòu)知識意義等學(xué)習(xí)理念，培養(yǎng)提高學(xué)生自主思考和學(xué)習(xí)詞匯規(guī)律的能力。關(guān)鍵詞：建構(gòu)主義；中學(xué)英語詞匯教學(xué)；歸納與演繹；情景學(xué)習(xí)；合作學(xué)習(xí)；參與性評價

詞匯教學(xué)是中學(xué)英語教學(xué)的重要組成部分，然而詞匯一直是中學(xué)生的主要學(xué)習(xí)障礙之一。教師多填鴨式的講解詞匯，將學(xué)生作為知識灌輸對象，學(xué)生的主要任務(wù)是消化、理解老師所傳輸?shù)闹R。詞匯教學(xué)手段單一，學(xué)生易產(chǎn)生厭倦和疲勞，最終導(dǎo)致詞匯教學(xué)效果不佳。筆者認(rèn)為，提倡“在教師指導(dǎo)下以學(xué)生為中心”的建構(gòu)主義理論能發(fā)揮學(xué)生學(xué)習(xí)的主動性、積極性和創(chuàng)造性，對中學(xué)英語詞匯教學(xué)具有重要的指導(dǎo)意義。一、建構(gòu)主義的理論概述建構(gòu)主義理論簡述最早提出建構(gòu)主義理論的是瑞士心理學(xué)家讓·皮亞杰。皮亞杰(Piage,t.,1972)對兒童心理進行了系統(tǒng)深入的研究,提出了認(rèn)知是一種以認(rèn)知主體已有的知識和經(jīng)驗為基礎(chǔ)的主動建構(gòu)的理論。他指出,兒童與周圍環(huán)境相互作用,逐步建構(gòu)關(guān)于外部世界的知識,從而使自身認(rèn)知結(jié)構(gòu)發(fā)展。這種發(fā)展過程以同化與順應(yīng)兩種方式進行。同化是指個體把外部環(huán)境中的有關(guān)信息納入到自己已有的認(rèn)知結(jié)構(gòu)(圖式)中的過程。順應(yīng)是指當(dāng)外部環(huán)境發(fā)生變化時,個體受到刺激或環(huán)境的作用而引起原有認(rèn)知結(jié)構(gòu)發(fā)生變化和創(chuàng)新以適應(yīng)外界環(huán)境。換句話說,同化是認(rèn)知結(jié)構(gòu)(圖式)的擴充,是量的變化;順應(yīng)則是認(rèn)知結(jié)構(gòu)的改變,是質(zhì)的變化。認(rèn)知主體的認(rèn)知結(jié)構(gòu)就是在不斷的量變和質(zhì)變中得到不斷豐富提高和發(fā)展(何克抗,1997)。建構(gòu)主義學(xué)習(xí)觀有三大主要觀點，一是認(rèn)為學(xué)習(xí)者的學(xué)習(xí)不是從零開始的，而是基于學(xué)習(xí)者原有的知識經(jīng)驗背景，知識的獲得是外界刺激與學(xué)習(xí)者原有認(rèn)識結(jié)構(gòu)交互作用的結(jié)果。二是認(rèn)為學(xué)習(xí)是學(xué)習(xí)者在一定的情景即社會背景下，借助他人(包括教師和學(xué)習(xí)伙伴等)的幫助，利用必要的學(xué)習(xí)資源通過意義建構(gòu)的方式獲得。因此，一個學(xué)習(xí)者獲得知識的多少取決于學(xué)習(xí)者根據(jù)自身經(jīng)驗去建構(gòu)有關(guān)知識的能力，而不是取決于學(xué)習(xí)者記憶和背誦教師講授內(nèi)容的能力。三是建構(gòu)主義學(xué)習(xí)理論認(rèn)為“情景”、“協(xié)作”、“會話”和“意義建構(gòu)”是學(xué)習(xí)環(huán)境的四大要素。建構(gòu)主義認(rèn)為學(xué)習(xí)總是在一定的情景下，借助其他人的幫助即通過人際間的協(xié)作活動實現(xiàn)意義的建構(gòu)。二、建構(gòu)主義在中學(xué)英語詞匯教學(xué)中的運用詞匯是語言的基礎(chǔ)，詞匯教學(xué)在語言教學(xué)中起著不可忽視的作用。英國著名語言學(xué)家D.A.Wilkins(1972:48)說：“沒有語法,人們不能表達(dá)很多東西,而沒有詞匯,則無法表達(dá)任何東西?！庇⒄Z教學(xué)實踐中,我們會發(fā)現(xiàn)當(dāng)學(xué)生的英語水平達(dá)到一定程度時,往往會停留在這個水平上,很難再有新的突破,究其原因,詞匯是一個很重要的因素,因為學(xué)生有限的詞匯量直接影響著詞匯量的大小,直接影響了一個語言學(xué)習(xí)者的聽、說、讀、寫各項技能的發(fā)展和提高。研究表明,詞匯量越大,聽力理解能力就越順利,閱讀效率也就越高,寫作內(nèi)容更豐富。詞匯教學(xué)至關(guān)重要,而以建構(gòu)主義指導(dǎo)英語詞匯教學(xué)是學(xué)習(xí)詞匯的有效途徑之一。筆者認(rèn)為，建構(gòu)主義可以運用在中學(xué)英語詞匯教學(xué)的以下四個方面：（一）歸納與演繹并重。學(xué)英語要掌握大量的詞匯，而掌握好前綴、后綴和詞根，是提高詞匯量的有效途徑。據(jù)統(tǒng)計前綴有48個，后綴有36個，詞根有111個。如果用傳統(tǒng)的教學(xué)法，那么多的詞根和詞綴是很難記住并靈活運用的，因此筆者在詞匯教學(xué)中充分利用建構(gòu)主義的同化和順應(yīng)，即新舊知識、新輸入和原有經(jīng)驗之間的關(guān)系，因為教授的對象是已經(jīng)有一定詞匯基礎(chǔ)，詞匯量大約有2000左右的中學(xué)生學(xué)生，我們應(yīng)更多地