| The world is in a new era of knowledge-based economy. International competition depends much on the competence to keep up with the economic trends and information, the ability to communicate with other nations freely and effectively, and the citizen's involvement in international affairs and business. People have come to realize that foreign language faculty is the premise to meet these demands. There have been signs of revival of interest in foreign language education. In order to change the poor status of foreign language education, America counted foreign language among the national core subjects to receive federal support. And it was in 1996 that the principal documents: Standards for Foreign Language Learning: Preparing for the 21st Century, which is often called American Five Cs Standards for short, was published for K-12 (kindergarten to Grade 12) students. To strengthen English education and replace the unfitting English curriculum used in the past, China formulated its programmatic document for basic English education: English curriculum Standards for Full-time Compulsory Education and High Schools in China (2001) (abridged as China's English Curriculum Standards). American Five Cs Standards and China's English Curriculum Standards are two independent educational documents for America and China respectively. But the comparability of these two standards is workable and rewarding for the facilitation of China's English education. This thesis begins with clarifying some confusing concepts and definitions, such as "curriculum", "curriculum standards", "standards"and the like, and the statement on the comparability of these two standards. Then comes the main body of the thesis: comparative research on the two standards. They are compared in five specific aspects: the organizations of the two standards books, their theoretical foundation, course goals, content standards, and sample lessons. First, the organizations of the two standards books are partly overlapped, which decides that the comparison just can be done on the similar parts. That is why the five specific aspects mentioned above have been made on comparison. Second, there is no particular part for the statement on rationale and theory involved in China's standards, although it can be inferred that constructivism and multiple intelligence theory are principal ones. American Five Cs Standards explicitly displays three assumptions, the framework of communicative mode, and seven curriculum elements besides a special part of statement on philosophical foundation. Third, Five Cs –communication, cultures, connections, communities, and comparisons –is the general course goal for American students. After their graduation from Grade 12, American students are expected to achieve themselves in these 5 Cs. While the comprehensive language faculty, which is also regarded as the actual use of English language in real life, is the overall goal for Chinese students for their basic English education. Fourth, content standards parts are the main parts in both of the standards. Grade 8 in America's standards and Band 5 in China's standards are chosen out to receive comparison as representatives. It is noticed that America's content standards are the highest expectations to their students and China's are the minimal requirements. Advanced Chinese students can learn more and reach higher bands if they have successfully passed the compulsory band. China's standards tend to cover both "big C"and "little C"culture while America's are inclined to cover "little C"culture. The two standards still have different tendency towards requirements on reading and vocabularies, learning peers and knowledge connections. Fifth, standards are abstract documents. How to use them and embody them in real classroom teaching is another problem. For better implementation both standards list sample classes to display what kinds of lessons are standard-based teaching. Comparatively speaking, sample lessons presented in China's standards are found inadequate in both quantity and contexts. Based on the comparative analysis of the two standards, some tentative suggestions are given in the last part of this thesis. First, awareness on English education in China needs enhancing. Second, a special section on the description of theory or rationale involved needs to be added to the China's standards so as to reach a better understanding of the standards themselves. Third, students should be provided with freedom to choose other kinds of foreign languages than merely English in areas where conditions permit. Fourth, more sample lessons should be designed to help incorporate the standards into real classroom teaching and learning. Fifth, sample lessons should demonstrate more teaching methods rather than just task-based teaching. Sixth, all goal areas in content standards should be classified into nine bands. Seventh, the requirements on learning resource/material strategies should be improved. This thesis is just a tentative research based on my personal perspective. There is still much room for further study. The ever-growing concern for and interest in research in China assures a good prospect for a sustainable development of China's English education.
|
PDF Full Text Request