【作者】 白玉波；

【导师】 靳健；

【作者基本信息】 西北师范大学 ， 课程与教学论， 2004， 硕士

【摘要】 制订于2001年7月的我国义务教育《语文课程标准》是我国新课程改革的产物，制订于2001年6月的美国(麻萨诸塞州)《英语语言艺术课程标准纲要》，也是该州课程改革中推出的全新之作。本论文从理念、结构、目标、策略和评价等五个方面对这两个课程标准作了分析比较，目的是通过比较为我们的语文课程改革找出一些可资借鉴的思路。 1、在课程理念方面，我国课程标准从“提高学生的语文素养，把握语文教育的特点，倡导自主、合作、探究的学习方式，建设开放而有活力的语文课程”四个方面阐述了新的课程理念，其内容有继承，也有创新，体现出了我国新时期语文教育的指导思想。美国麻萨诸塞州课程标准从十个方面阐述了其课程理念，这十个方面包括语言与思维的关系、挑战性学习、阅读、写作与智力、媒体、指令传授、策略与自主性、课程构建、口头与书面表达特色、民族共同感和语言凝聚力等内容。 2、在课程标准的结构方面，我国课程标准的课程目标按九年一贯制整体设计，总目标之下有学段目标；课程目标的设计根据知识与能力、过程与方法、情感态度价值观三个维度，相互渗透，融为一体。美国麻萨诸塞州的课程标准依据其递升性和互存性设计思路，在课程理念——十条指导原则的规范下，课程标准依照语言、阅读与文学、写作、媒体四个部分分成二十七个一般标准(目标)，又按不同年级学段的教学要求细化为学习标准(目标)。 3、在课程标准的目标方面，我国的总目标将其确定为识字写字、阅读、写话和习作、口语交际、综合性学习五大块。美国麻萨诸塞州课程标准的目标划分除了媒体部分的目标为我国课程标准所缺少外，其余的语言、阅读与文学、以及写作基本都与我国课程标准的目标相似。 4、在教学策略方面，两个课程标准的“阅读”教学策略的都体现出全面、具体的特征；“写作”教学策略重视能力与方法的培养。区别是我国课程标准较为强调写字，美国(麻萨诸塞州)课程标准的该部分较侧重于扩大词汇；我国课程标准在“口语交际”部分较强调互动，对方更侧重对听众和目的的兼顾。 5、在评价策略方面，我国的课程标准对“写字”有美育方面的评价要求，美国(麻萨诸塞州)课程标准则强调词汇量的扩大。我国的阅读评价较为侧重对方法、速度及阅读范围的评价，对方则较为侧重对阅读实践能力的评价；我国的写作评价标准较关注写作能力的培养，对方则比较侧重写作实践。更多还原

【Abstract】 The Compulsory School Chinese Curriculum Standards of our country, which was made in July 2001, is a product of the new curriculum reform of the country. Massachusetts English Language Arts Curriculum Framework of the United States, which was made in June 2001, serves also as a totally new version after the curriculum reform of the State of Massachusetts. This paper has made a comparison and analysis between the above two curriculums in their similarities and differences of their ideologies, structures, aims (standards), strategies and assessments. The definite aims of this research are to search for some helpful ideas or approaches to help further improve our Chinese curriculum reform.1. In the aspect of the curriculum ideologies, the Curriculum Standards of our country states its new ideology from four points: first, improve the students’ Chinese literacy; second, clearly make sure the features of the Chinese teaching; thirdly, spark plug the learning fashions of self-determination, cooperation and investigation; fourthly, construct an open and dynamic Chinese curriculum. The four points which have both some inheritance of the past and some invention, show the guiding ideas of the Chinese education of this new era. The Curriculum Framework of Massachusetts State states its ideas in ten points which include the relationship between language and thinking, challenging learning, reading, writing and intelligence, media, instruction giving, curriculum building, strategies and self-determination, voice of oral and written presentation, sense of being common and unifying force of language, etc.2. In the aspect of curriculum structure, our Curriculum Standards takes the designing approach of nine-year system which contains a big aim with four different schooling stage aims under it. The design was made according to the three-dimension idea of knowledge and ability, process and approach, and mood, feeling and ideology of value. The three dimensions mix with each other and make a whole. Whereas the Massachusetts Curriculum Framework was made under the designing approach of being recursive and interdependent. The Curriculum ideas which are in fact its ten Guiding Principles, properly govern the whole curriculum and help divide the content into four strands: language, reading and literature, writing, media, by applying its twenty-seven General Standards to the contents. By the way, these General Standards were again specified into Learning Standards which all serve as teaching aims.3. In the aspect of the curriculum standards’ aims, the big aim of our curriculum divides itself into five parts: words learning and writing, reading, sentence writing or composition, oral communication, and the last one, integrated learning. With most of the standards as similar as ours, the Massachusetts Curriculum Framework shows its peculiarity in its mediastandards.4. In the aspect of teaching strategies, both the curriculum standards show their common features of being systematic and specific in reading and also in writing, with an emphasis on the cultivation of students’ ability and methods. The differences lie in the attitudes towards new words learning, which we stress the writing of the new words much more strongly than the Massachusetts Curriculum Framework, for our characters are hard to write, but they don’t share this worry of writing, so they only pay attention to the words expanding. Our Curriculum Standards stresses more on the interaction of oral communication than theirs while they emphasize much more about the consideration of the audience and the purposes.5. In the aspect of assessment, our Curriculum Standards shows special concern to the beauty education of character writing while the Massachusetts Curriculum Framework stresses still on the expansion of the students’ vocabulary. In evaluating reading approaches, our Curriculum Standards pays more attention to the evaluation of the methods, speed and reading scope while the Massachusetts Curriculum Framework emphasizes the ability of the students更多还原