【作者】 王艺；

【导师】 靳健；

【作者基本信息】 西北师范大学 ， 课程与教学论， 2005， 硕士

【摘要】 我国《全日制义务教育语文课程标准(实验稿)》中首次设置了综合性学习的内容,它作为一种全新的学习方式,是我国新课标的一大亮点,其目的在于使语文课的教学突破传统应试教育的樊篱,突出学生的主体性。而在美国麻萨诸塞州(以下简称麻州)的《英语语言艺术课程标准纲要》中,综合性学习已经是一种基本的学习方式了,虽然,他们的课标中并没有专门部分探讨这一内容,但这种学习方式却渗透在对方课标的全部内容之中。基于这样的考虑,笔者把研究的着眼点放在两国小学、初中阶段综合性学习的比较上。在探讨语文综合性学习基本理论的基础上,以有代表性的具体、生动的课例为切入点,试图通过对两国语文综合性学习在理念、目标、实施和评价等四方面的比较,凸现各自的特点。通过比较和分析,以期能对我国语文综合性学习的教学实践有所启示和借鉴。 在语文综合性学习理念方面,两国都关注学生语文素养的提高,都强调要培养学生的语文实践能力;两国的理念视角各有侧重,我国侧重于强调综合多种学习方式,渗透多种学科的知识与能力,美国则更侧重于强调要立足于语言学习本身,提高学生的综合素养,发展学生的各种能力。 在语文综合性学习目标方面,我国的综合性学习目标表述较为简约、概括,对方的则较为详尽、细致;反映在教育观上,我国强调不仅要传授知识,更应让学生学会求知、做人,与他人相处等,而美国则强调要尊重学生的个性和自由发展,注重学生创新意识和创造才能的培养。 在语文综合性学习实施方面,两国都重视教师的组织、引导作用,都注重发挥学生的主体、能动作用;在学习方式上,我国倡导自主、合作和探究的学习方式,而在美国,我们倡导的这种新的学习方式早已作为一种基本的学习方式内化在对方的全部学习行动中了;在实施的要求上,我国较为简略,美国则较为细致;在可利用学习资源上,我国与美国相比还存在一定差距;美国麻州的媒体部分具有鲜明的时代特色,而这些内容对于我国大多数学生来说还是一个较新的领域。 在语文综合性学习评价方面,两国都重视学生在综合性学习过程中的评价,都强调综合性学习评价方式的多元化;美国麻州十分注重对综合性学习中教师作用的评价,也十分重视对综合性学习成果展示的评价,这些都是值得我们借鉴的。 总之,两国的综合性学习都体现了实践教育和主体教育的思想。它们的差异根源,一方面,是价值观的根本区别,反映在教育观念上,美国强调个人的自由更多还原

【Abstract】 The Compulsory School Chinese Curriculum Standards of our country first put forwards some integrated learning content. As a new learning mode, it is the exact features of the Standards, aiming to break through the traditional teaching mode in Chinese class by placing the subjectivity of the students in full swing. By comparison, in Massachusetts English Language Arts Curriculum Framework of the United States, such a learning mode has been a basic one. Although without any special section to deal with it, it has been implied in all the content. Based on this, the author concentrates on the comparison between the primary and junior educational period in the two countries. By probing into the basic theories of integrated learning and listing some representative, concrete and lively samples, the thesis makes a comparison between their concepts, aims, implement and comments. Accordingly we hope it can offer some reference to Chinese integrated learning in our country.In the aspect of concept, the two countries both attach great importance to training the student’s language attainment and their ability. Despite this, differences find evidence in their perspectives. Our country emphasizes particularly on integrating various learning modes, which are interfused with the ability to acquire other subjects. While in the United States, they put more attention to language itself, and then training the student’s comprehensive attainment and developing their different ability.In the aspect of learning object, our object is brief and recapitulative, while their object is more elaborate and detailed. On educational idea, our country lays more stress on teaching them how to learn, how to behave themselves and how to get along with people around as well as implementing knowledge. While in America, they emphasize more on language learning itself and further improve the students’ comprehensive accomplishment and train their abilities.In their implementation, both the two countries put stress on the role of the teachers as organizer and guide, and on full play to the role of the students’ initiative as subjects. As to learning mode, our country proposes initiative, cooperative and inquiry learning. While in America, the mode we propose has been interiorized intotheir whole learning process as a basic way. About the requirement of the implementation, ours are curt, while theirs are more concrete. As for available learning source, there exists a certain disparity for us to overcome compared with American, e.g. The media part transmits strong current features of modern times which is a new field for most of us to experiment.In the aspect of evaluation system, the two countries both pay great stress on the evaluation of the students’ integrated learning process and on the multiplicity of such evaluation. What we should learn from the Framework is their attention both to the evaluation on the teachers’ role in the process and the students’ achievement.In brief, the comprehensive learning of the two countries reflect the ideas of practical and initiative education. Their disparities lie, on the one hand, in their values, as a result, American educational notion emphasizes free individual development and rights, while ours reveals collectivistic values; on the other hand, in different history traditions. Deeply influenced by modern western democratic ideology and immigrant democratic spirits, Americans develop a complete democratic tradition and current values, democracy and education ideals. While in our country, long existing feudal despotic tradition still finds expression in modern society. In accordance, we overemphasize wholeness and order in education.更多还原