在任务型教学中运用评价课堂表现方法的研究
ted components; easy decimals; service is included; menu prices are obvious.
5.Cognitive complexity high
The bill is incorrect: service is not included; menu prices are listed obscurely; bill difficult
6.Communicative demand low
Undirectional: relatively unlimited planning time; only reading and writing, no interaction involved.
7.Communicative demand high
Need to question waiter for clarification of confusing or unclear entries in the bill, special prices, etc.; restaurant is closing and waiter is hovering around, waiting for the bill; higher stakes if the bill is wrong.
Conversation 1:
[between a waiter (W) and a customer ( C ) ] (beginning level)
W: Can I help you?
C: Check, please. … Here’s the money.
Conversation 2: (intermediate level)
C: Waiter, may I gave check, please?
W: Oh yes. I’m sorry. I’ll be back in a minute. ( after a few minutes)
W: (hanging over the corrected check ) I’m sorry to have kept you waiting.
C: It’s OK . Thank You.
Ⅹ.. Conclusion
To assess accurately, to record, and to give feedback on what the students are accomplishing and where they are on the learning continuum, we need to gather as much information as possible before making decisions about the students. Besides, the information we gather should be accurate and reliable. In this way, we can make the students be interesting in English.
__________________
Bibliography:
1. Airasian, P. W. 1994 Classroom Assessment. New York: McGraw-Hill.
2. Cooper. J. D. !997. Literacy: Helping Children Construct Meaning. Boston, MA; Houghton Mifflin.
3. Estaire, S, and J, Zanon. 1994. Planning Classwork: A Task-Based Approach. Macmillan Heinemann English Language Teaching.
4. Glazer, S. M. and C, S. Brown .1993. Portfolios and Beyond: Collaborative Assessment in reading and Writing. Norwood, MA: Macmillan Heinemann English Language teaching.
5. Harris, M. and P. Mc Cann. 1994. Assessment. Macmillan, Heinemann English Language Teaching.
6. Jerosky, S. (ed.) 1997. Field-Based Research: A Working guide, Queen’s Printer for British Columbia.
7. 罗少茜： 2001. A Handbook of Performance Assessments.
8. Norris, J. M., J. D. Brown, T. Hudson and J. Yoshioka. 1998. designing Second Language Performance Assessments. Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
9. Pierce, L. V. and J. M. O’Malley. 1992. Performance and program Information Guide Series, 9 (ERIC document Reproduction Service No. ERIC document Reproduction Service No. ED346 747).
10. Sjoquist, R. 2001. An Introduction to Performance Assessment Presentation at Nanjing, China.
11. Skehan, P. 1998. A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
《在任务型教学中运用评价课堂表现方法的研究》
本文链接地址：http://www.oyaya.net/fanwen/view/80115.html
5.Cognitive complexity high
The bill is incorrect: service is not included; menu prices are listed obscurely; bill difficult
to decipher.
6.Communicative demand low
Undirectional: relatively unlimited planning time; only reading and writing, no interaction involved.
7.Communicative demand high
Need to question waiter for clarification of confusing or unclear entries in the bill, special prices, etc.; restaurant is closing and waiter is hovering around, waiting for the bill; higher stakes if the bill is wrong.
Conversation 1:
[between a waiter (W) and a customer ( C ) ] (beginning level)
W: Can I help you?
C: Check, please. … Here’s the money.
Conversation 2: (intermediate level)
C: Waiter, may I gave check, please?
W: Oh yes. I’m sorry. I’ll be back in a minute. ( after a few minutes)
W: (hanging over the corrected check ) I’m sorry to have kept you waiting.
C: It’s OK . Thank You.
Ⅹ.. Conclusion
To assess accurately, to record, and to give feedback on what the students are accomplishing and where they are on the learning continuum, we need to gather as much information as possible before making decisions about the students. Besides, the information we gather should be accurate and reliable. In this way, we can make the students be interesting in English.
__________________
Bibliography:
1. Airasian, P. W. 1994 Classroom Assessment. New York: McGraw-Hill.
2. Cooper. J. D. !997. Literacy: Helping Children Construct Meaning. Boston, MA; Houghton Mifflin.
3. Estaire, S, and J, Zanon. 1994. Planning Classwork: A Task-Based Approach. Macmillan Heinemann English Language Teaching.
4. Glazer, S. M. and C, S. Brown .1993. Portfolios and Beyond: Collaborative Assessment in reading and Writing. Norwood, MA: Macmillan Heinemann English Language teaching.
5. Harris, M. and P. Mc Cann. 1994. Assessment. Macmillan, Heinemann English Language Teaching.
6. Jerosky, S. (ed.) 1997. Field-Based Research: A Working guide, Queen’s Printer for British Columbia.
7. 罗少茜： 2001. A Handbook of Performance Assessments.
8. Norris, J. M., J. D. Brown, T. Hudson and J. Yoshioka. 1998. designing Second Language Performance Assessments. Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
9. Pierce, L. V. and J. M. O’Malley. 1992. Performance and program Information Guide Series, 9 (ERIC document Reproduction Service No. ERIC document Reproduction Service No. ED346 747).
10. Sjoquist, R. 2001. An Introduction to Performance Assessment Presentation at Nanjing, China.
11. Skehan, P. 1998. A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
《在任务型教学中运用评价课堂表现方法的研究》
★读了本文的人也读了：