A Comparative Study Of Integrated Learning In The Primary And Junior Educational Period Of America And China

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.