Foreign Language Department A Study on Basic English Teaching Model Based on Constructivist Approach Wu Shujing Foreign Language Department Bin Zhou University Email: wyc_8@yahoo.com.cn

Outline Background Literature review Research design Data analysis and discussion Pedagogical implications Conclusion

1、Background of the Study The traditional teaching model Overemphasize the modeling and learning by rote. De-emphasize the discourse between teacher and students. Neglect the cultivation of the students’ creative thinking and autonomous learning abilities.

2、Literature Review Constructivist approach Learning is an active process of constructing based on their previous experience and knowledge. Learning is constantly seeking equilibration, i.e. a balance between what is known and what is currently being experienced. Learning how to learn is the key to transferring what we have learned from one situation to another. The secret of effective learning lies in the nature of the social interaction between two or more people with different levels of skills and knowledge .

2、Literature Review Roles of teachers and students Teachers’ roles: information provider; facilitators; counselor organizer; administer; evaluator Learners’ roles: constructors ; explorers; creators; evaluator; thinker; administer

2、Literature Review English language teaching programs based on constructiviste approach The constructivist approach has brought a great impact on foreign language teaching and learning (Nunan 1989; Prabhu 1987) In china, there are many theoretical explorations in constructive perspective on English teaching (Huang 2000; Hou 2000; Chen 2001; Wang 2003; Dai 2004; Zhao 2004; He 2004; Tian 2005; Feng 2006)

3. Research Design Cultivate the students’ learning autonomy ; Objectives of the research Cultivate the students’ learning autonomy ; improve their comprehensive ability; promote the teaching standard and quality; form a sound model in the teaching and learning of Basic English.

3. Research Design Participants: two regular classes (80 second graders for English majors ) in the same university have similar experiences shared the same teacher

Participants: experimental group, including 31 girls and 8 boys ; the control group, with 33 girls and 8 boys The two classes received six class hours each week. The textbook was progressed at the same rate. The experimental group received the constructivist approach ; the control group received the conventional teacher-centered approach. The pretest (p=.467, two-tailed) indicates there exists no significant difference.

Data collection instrument Questionnaires about students’ attitudes towards and ability of self-directed learning Students’ self-assessment sheet Learner contract Three students’ proficiency tests The students’ evaluation of the model in the form of letter

Pre-test Mid-test Post-test Pre-survey Post-survey Group division Procedures of the research Pre-test Mid-test Post-test Pre-survey Post-survey Group division

The three panels of the teaching process Learning before class Classroom teaching (a two-part sequence ) Autonomous learning after class

The Basic English teaching model Situation Self-inquiry Cooperation Innovation Presentation Self-reflection Self-assessment

4. Data Analysis and Discussion Analysis of the two questionnaires Test score analysis Findings from the contracts Students’ evaluation of the program Discussion

Response of Pre-survey Comparison of the two questionnaires in the pre-survey Factor G Response of Pre-survey Mean Std. Deviation t Sig. (2-tailed) Factor 1 CG 3.4866 .57404 .226 .822 EG 3.4545 .58489 Factor 2 3.4485 .72504 .426 .673 3.3897 .46135 Factor 3 3.9902 .62757 .070 .945 3.9804 .38439 Factor 1, Cronbach's Alpha=.837 ;Factor 2, Cronbach's Alpha= .702 ; Factor 3, Cronbach's Alpha= .542; The Cronbach's Alpha of the 22 items is .819.

Response of Post-survey Comparison of the two questionnaires in the post-survey Factor G Response of Post-survey Mean Std. Deviation t Sig. (2-tailed) Factor 1 CG 3.4395 .51177 -1.283 .207 EG 3.5842 .43280 Factor 2 3.8596 .60841 .796 .431 3.7368 .74398 Factor 3 .56223 -1.576 .124 4.0263 .39806

Comparison of the test score analysis EG Group N Pass Percent Percent of Excellence Mean Std. Deviation t Sig. (2-tailed) Pre-test 39 92% 12% 75.29 11.71746 -.504 .617 CG 41 95% 17% 76.45 8.02036 Mid-test 18% 75.39 10.36008 1.117 .271 85% 73.24 10.92424 TEM-4 51% 10% 61.60 12.19857 8.192 .000** 37% 2% 57.82 10.13429

Findings from the contracts attainable objectives specific plans confidence of self-assessment and peer-assessment Students’ evaluation of the program 90% of the students like the student-centered approach. Nearly 80% of the students agree that the new approach is more autonomous. Most students think the new teaching approach is beneficial for them to improve their abilities to think and to cooperate.

Discussion The results of the program support the view that developing some degree of autonomy is essential if learners are to become effective language users. The results of the program also support the understanding that autonomous learning is certainly not “teacher-less learning” .

5.Pedagogical Implications The shift of teacher-centered class to student-centered class can only be realized by assessing students’ needs and overcoming their psychological dependence on the teachers. Students are encouraged to be interdependent and to work collaboratively. Guide students to make good use of modern technology. It is very necessary to establish an effectual monitoring and controlling mechanism.

6. Conclusion The positive results Problems: The students have not only learned language skills and will also have developed the capacity to think and to take control of their own learning Problems: Effectual assessment mechanism has not been well developed. How to strike a balance between the teacher’s role and the learners’ role needs further study.