三5b文献综述范例 补充说明版2[精选]

1、整篇文档通用的页面设置参数为：a4打印纸（21厘米）。英文及阿拉伯数字字体均为times new roman。页面左页边距，右页边距，上下页边距各2.5厘米。页眉距边界，页脚距边界。论文题目：中文题目在上，英文题目在下，英文字体times new roman，中文用宋体，三号，加粗，居中。如果题目长，可以适当调整字号，字体最小不小于小四。不得调整表格宽度。本科生毕业设计(论文)文献综述此处行根据下表大小调整，可以在空2-5行之间。设计 (论文)题目学生对教学方法的反馈的研究本页空白单元格格式均为：宋体（汉字），times new roman（西文和数字），三号，单元格内居中对齐。段落设置为：行

2、距为固定值26磅，段前0行，段后0行。不得调整表格宽度。efl literature studies: student feedback on teaching methodology作者所在系别外语系作者所在专业英语作者所在班级b0871x作 者 姓 名(中文)作 者 学 号指导教师姓名(中文)指导教师职称(中文)完 成 时 间200x年xx月此处行根据下表大小调整，可以在空1-3行之间。此页无页码北华航天工业学院教务处制本页不得删除说 明1根据学校毕业设计(论文)工作暂行规定，学生必须撰写毕业设计(论文)文献综述。文献综述作为毕业设计(论文)答辩委员会对学生答辩资格审查的依据材料之一。2文

3、献综述应在指导教师指导下，由学生在毕业设计(论文)工作前期内完成，由指导教师签署意见并经所在专业教研室审查。3文献综述各项内容要实事求是，文字表达要明确、严谨，语言通顺，外来语要同时用原文和中文表达。第一次出现缩写词，须注出全称。4学生撰写文献综述，阅读的主要参考文献应在10篇以上（土建类专业文献篇数可酌减），其中外文资料应占一定比例。本学科的基础和专业课教材一般不应列为参考资料。5文献综述的撰写格式按毕业设计(论文)撰写规范的要求，字数在2000字左右。文献综述应与开题报告同时提交。此页无页码毕 业 设 计（论 文）文 献 综 述不用加标题字体times new roman, 半角西文, 小

4、四号字，两端对齐，每段首行缩进2字符，1.25倍行距，段前0行，段后0行。第一段与表格之间空一行时态：叙述别人观点，复述小说情节用过去时态；讲述自己的观点和评价用现在时态。对未来的展望和希望用将来时。as learners of english as a foreign language (efl) begin english studies at increasingly younger ages, tertiary level efl instructors can expect to encounter students with greater levels of english pr

5、oficiency in lecture halls. how best to confront this issue and the resulting debate is nothing new (ajideh, 2006; benesch, 1993; gieve, 1998; kramsch & nolden, 1994). the role that literature plays within this context has also received attention. examining literatures role in.this trend, hall (2005

6、) noted the increasing tendency of introducing literature to facilitate language teaching since the latter part of the past century. evidence (ajideh, 2006; paran, 2008) has since suggested that this is no longer a trend but has become the norm. however, as paran (2008) duly noted, 前人的观点although muc

7、h research has identified how best to utilize literature in the efl classroom, little research exists on how learners react to classroom literature teaching practices. 本文作者对前人研究的评价as paran puts it, “findings in this area learner perspectives on the methodology of literature instruction are still qui

8、te rare, and it is extremely difficult to make any generalizations” (paran, 2008: 477), a view shared by green (1993) and altan (2006). instead, the majority of research has focused on how much a learners language skills have improved from a test-driven, quantitative perspective (i.e., have learner

9、skills improved because of methodology x, and if so, to what degree), and has largely ignored a more qualitative perspective on student perceptions of classroom activities.as coxhead (2006) and ajideh (2006) have argued, learners preparing to enroll in tertiary level studies in english speaking coun

10、tries require support. however, how best to structure this support remains open to debate, as is the influence students have in determining the methodology instructors use in the classroom. this study finds its central focus in the latter, analyzing how students react to various forms of literature

11、instruction. it examines the reaction of japanese learners preparing to study overseas to three different approaches to integrating literature into a syllabus: (a) a “hands off” approach, used as a control, where neither scaffolding nor schema activating activities are used, and students are asked t

12、o explore a text with no support from the instructor; (b) a stylistics approach; and (c) an approach that combines stylistics with reader-response theory that is prefaced by a teacher-centered lecture on literary theory designed to promote meta-cognitive awareness. data collected were qualitative an

13、d obtained from questionnaires as well as one-on-one interviews with the instructor.some of the questions guiding this research included the following: how beneficial is scaffolding from a students perspective? what are learner perspectives on being made aware of the theory behind the teaching methodology? how would students react to being placed in this position of meta-cognitive awareness? what is their attitude regarding how literature is discussed or analyzed in the classroom? this study examines the answers to these questions and helps close the gap between learner and instructor persp