2. Foreign Language Department
A Study on Basic English Teaching Model Based on Constructivist Approach
Wu Shujing
Foreign Language Department
Bin Zhou University

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

4. 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.

5. 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 .

6. 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

7. 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)

8. 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.

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

10. 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.

11. 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

12. 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

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

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

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

16. 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.

17. 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

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

19. 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.

20. 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” .

21. 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.

22. 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.