教学法---TBLT

英语中常见的教学方法有哪些1. Task-Based Language Teaching,即TBLT这是新课标之后实行的新型教学方法——任务型教学，这个意识半会儿说不清楚，你得好好研究一下。

如果成功了，这个教学方法课堂效果会很好。

2.五步教学法：Step 1 Warming upStep 2 Presentation and practiceStep 3 PresentationStep 4 PracticeStep 5 Post Task3.五指教学法:RPCPPStep 1 ReviewStep 2 PresentationStep 3 ConsolidationStep 4 PracticeStep 5 ProjectPresentation4.3P教学法Warming-upPresentationPracticeProductionHomework5交际型教学Communicative Teaching在教学过程中创设或模拟真实情景交际，让学生通过听、说、理解等交际活动不断沟通交流、进行互动的一种教学模式下面谈一谈英语学习方式前面提到四种学习方式：合作学习/共同学习、自主学习、任务型学习、探究学习。

下面就对它们做一个简明扼要的介绍。

这个介绍是提纲挈领的介绍，涉及不到十分具体的技巧。

关于技巧方面可以在培训班另安排时间深入探讨。

过去（甚至目前）学生课堂学习的方式比较单一、枯燥乏味、效果不佳。

这种学习方式就是大家所熟悉的学生听教师讲为主的方式。

《英语课程标准》建议教师帮助学生掌握多种学习方式。

这里介绍的四种学习方式，不是全部的学习方式，比如，有条件的地方，可以利用多媒体手段、利用互联网络进行学习。

这里介绍四种学习方式，不意味着其他学习方式不好，或者无效，而是要根据教学实际情况选择使用、交替使用、综合使用。

而且，教师讲解也不是在教学中没有任何地位，必要的时候，仍然可以使用。

只不过不要把它作为唯一的方式或者主要的学习方式。

Part 2: Task-based language teaching (TBLT)1 TBLT explainedTask-based language teaching (TBLT) is a communicative approach to language instruction, usingthe successful completion of communicative “tasks” as its primary organizing principle. In short, instruction is organized in such a way that students will improve their language ability by focusing on getting something done while using the language, rather than on explicitly practicing language forms, as in more traditional methods of instruction.Challenges of CLTTBLT has grown out of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), which, in our opinion, has suffered from several disadvantages completely unrelated to its core philosophy—namely, that learners learn a language best by using it to try to negotiate meaning.It has been argued for decades now that the authentic negotiation of meaning should be a crucial component of language classes. However, this ideal has not always been met for several reasons. Perhaps the most important of these is the simple fact that looking at language as a collection of describable forms that can be easily presented, practiced and tested is easy to do, while describing what happens during authentic communication, not to mention then structuring it into a syllabusand assessing it, is not. As a result, there has been resistance to or considerable adaptation of truly communicative syllabuses.In our experience of teaching EFL in Japan, where rote-learning and repetition drills have long ruled language studies, CLT has often been misunderstood or oversimplified. The CLT movement, which began taking root here in the late 1980s, seems to have given cause for some teachers and institutions to de-emphasize structured language studies altogether, and focus simply on “making conversation,” preferably with native speakers. Conversely, other instructors have continued having their students repeat set textbook dialogs and newly learned grammatically correct examples to each other, but now calling this “oral communication.” It seems to us that classroom realities (student motivation, class size, instruction time) as well as professional realities (a lack of understanding of second language acquisition methods and theory, a lack of preparation time), have often combined with the apparent simplicity of CLT to ensure the general failure of the approach in some Asian contexts.The basic tenet of CLT, however, remains sound. Languages are best learned when there is an opportunity for students to focus on meaning rather than form, at least some of the time. The problem only exists in how to present these opportunities to students. “Making conversation” is oftentimestoo vague. Not only do the students themselves become confused as to what exactly they should talk about and why (e.g., Talk about your summer vacation. Go!), from the teacher’s perspective thereis also little basis for evaluation or indeed systematic instruction. On the other hand, repeating set dialogs or substitution drills (e.g., Which _____ do you like best? 1) car 2) food 3) sport) allows for very limited meaning-making. Consider what the student doing such a drill would be concentrating on most: Whether they like Volkswagens or baseball, or whether they are forming their sentences correctly?Advantages of TBLTA task-based approach solves many of the criticisms traditionally associated with Communicative Language Teaching. To begin with, consider these characteristics of tasks:2•Meaning is primary.•Learners are not restricted in their use of language forms.•Tasks should bear a relationship to real-world activities.•The priority is on achieving the goal of the task.•Tasks are assessed based on their outcome.TBLT provides a structured framework for both instruction and assessment. Using tasks as thebasic building blocks of syllabus design allows teachers to both sequence lessons and assess their outcomes, while at the same time creating reasonably authentic parameters within which students can communicate with each other for a purpose. Most importantly, it allows them to focus on what it is that they are saying to each other, rather than on how they are saying it. A task may be short and self-contained (e.g., ordering a pizza by telephone) or longer and more complex (e.g., organizing and publishing a student newspaper), but the tasks always involve a clear and practical outcome (e.g., The pizza arrives with the correct toppings, or the newspaper is printed and is recognizably a newspaper). In a task-based approach, specific language forms should never be the primary focus, because it is important that students be allowed to make meaning in whichever way they see fit, at least at first. Teachers may assist or even correct students when asked, of course, but may not restrict the students’ choice of which forms to use by explicitly teaching, say, the present continuous before the task is attempted. A post-task phase, on the other hand, is generally recognized by TBLT practitioners as useful. During this segment of the lesson, after the students have attempted the task, the teachermay choose to go over the language used, correcting specific errors and/or highlighting particularly well-suited forms that students may have attempted to use.When considering TBLT, it is crucial to focus on the fundamental notion of authenticity, as tasks attempt to simulate, in a way that is as authentic as possible, what happens when students attempt real-world activities.This has several advantages:•Authentic tasks are intrinsically motivating. That is, students attempt them because they see that the task is, in itself, interesting and applicable to their lives.•Targeted real-world tasks have much clearer outcomes that can be more easily assessed, unlike more general, or “open,” tasks such as having a conversation. For example, when aperson attempts to order a pizza on the telephone in a second language, that person knows ifhe or she has “passed” or “failed” within a very short time—when the pizza does or does notarrive, with the correct toppings or not.•Real-world activities can be looked at and sequenced in much the same way as grammar forms can—from simpler to more complex. For instance, ordering from a menu at arestaurant is easier than ordering by telephone for several reasons—students can usegestures, text and sometimes pictures; there is less information to convey (e.g., no addressor credit card number); students may resort to single-word utterances. In the same way,telling a story is more complex than both examples above, because students now need touse connected sentences, time markers, pronouns and so on. It can be reasonably assumedthat a student who can tell a story in English can also telephone for a pizza or order at arestaurant (but not vice-versa), in much the same way as we can reasonably assume thata student who can use conditionals can also use the present continuous (but again, notvice-versa).Therefore, when a series of connected, themed tasks are sequenced in such a way as allows studentsto simulate a real-world context and perform at an increasing level of complexity, a variety of benefits occur. These include a purpose-driven recycling of vocabulary and language forms, a heightened sense of overall motivation, a marked increase in communicative confidence, scaffolded autonomy-building and a truly student-centered classroom. Much of the language learning thus occurs implicitly, as noticing on the part of the student, rather than as explaining on the part of the teacher.A “strong” approach to TBLTIt has been argued that TBLT may not be the best way to develop basic language skills in the lowest ability levels, nor for very young learners. Because ours is a “strong” approach to TBLT, we generally agree with this perspective. Although many textbooks on the market today claim to be task-based,and are targeted across many levels including children and beginners, we should stress that these are, almost without exception, and often admitted to by the authors, a “weak” approach to TBLT. In other words, they make compromises with some of the tenets of TBLT in order to target children and beginners, especially by providing language-based activities such as embedded grammar points. We do not find fault with this practice beyond simply articulating the fact that these are not, strictly speaking, task-based courses. In fact, we think that many of these courses are very well designed in their own right and serve their purposes well.We believe that a strong TBLT approach is built squarely upon a foundation of authenticity. Tasks must be as realistic as possible in order to engage students so that their meaning-making is also as authentic as it can be. A “weak” approach may be effective in an ESL environment, since the forms students learn in class may be authentically used outside the classroom almost immediately. In an EFL environment, however, such opportunities are usually limited, and therefore the more authenticity created inside the classroom, the better. For this to happen, tasks must not simply be authentic in their own right, but they must be authentically linked to each other as well, thus creating a sustained authenticity which allows for the recycling and reinforcement of the language forms used.Task complexityOne other important aspect of TBLT is the underlying assumption that task complexity is somehow linked to language complexity. This is supported by various “language descriptor” systems developed over the years in different countries. Perhaps the first and best known of these is the ACTFL Guidelines. We recommend the Canadian Language Benchmarks (CLB) and the Common European Frameworkof Reference for Languages (both available online). The CLB document—The Canadian Language Benchmarks 2000: English as a Second Language for Adults—is especially clear and accessible for teachers new to TBLT.The idea of task complexity as an organizing feature for language instruction is simple and intuitively clear, though the possibility of objective correlations between task and language complexity are still sometimes disputed by researchers. Briefly, however, we can generally assume that the complexity of any task is linked to the language needed to perform it. As an example, and at a very basic level, most teachers may agree that, if a student can successfully describe a photo of familiar, concrete items, then that student can: Make simple sentences (e.g., It’s a dog.); modify nouns with adjectives (e.g., It’s a redshirt.); use a couple of basic verb forms (e.g.; He is walking.); etc. This student would not necessarily, however, be able to tell a story because he or she may not be able to use more complex language, such as connecting sentences together coherently (e.g., The man walks to the store. He buys a drink there. Later, he goes home.). Certainly, there is no indication that this student may be able to give a formal presentation using a variety of verb forms and an expanded vocabulary, since that is, again, a more complex type of task. Thus, by organizing a syllabus according to increasing task complexity, even though there is no specific focus on language, we can slowly increase the language complexity attempted by students.However, there are shortcomings to this approach. The debate continues on how tasks should be sequenced in terms of linguistic, cognitive and other complexities. There is also no strong consensus on whether students being able to perform one particular task are necessarily proficient at performing all tasks of the same type. Despite these and other such caveats, however, we strongly believe that, from the perspective of the classroom teacher, TBLT presents a clear and easy-to-use resolution to some of the problems inherent in Communicative Language Teaching.Much more can, and indeed should, be considered with regards to TBLT, but we hope that the above will be enough to get teachers into the right frame of mind to approach Widgets.TBLT and WidgetsOur primary consideration when organizing Widgets has been authenticity, which means that where there has been a conflict with the conventional interpretation of the literature, we have tended toward what “felt” more real. For example, we did not follow an explicit form of the pre-task/task/post-task structure, because we felt that by doing this we would be breaking some of the illusion of authenticity provided by the overall simulation. However, we have tried to stay true to the spirit of this framework by making our tasks fit into and support each other incrementally, so that each individual task serves to some extent as the pre-task phase for the one following it, and also as the post-task phase for the one which came before.Regarding the “openness” or “closedness” of tasks,3 we have looked at the issue from a more complex perspective. Although most tasks in Widgets may appear to be open, in fact they “draw to a close,” so to speak. In Stage 2, for example, the smaller sub-tasks building up to having students create a new product idea allow a necessary freedom of discussion at first, but at the same time begin to converge students onto a range of outcomes that are more restricted. For instance, the product idea must be original, safe, useful, etc. While these may appear at first to be subjective criteria, students almost invariably come to the realization that there is indeed general agreement as to which products are safe and which are not, effectively creating “correct” and “incorrect” outcomes.In other words, we have let the content re-inform our understanding of the theory rather than let theory dictate the content. We feel that our ideas have been supported by the positive results we and our colleagues have seen in the classroom.Task-based assessmentWe, like most teachers today, take it as a given that communicative ability in a second language must be considered as a whole. That is, communicative ability includes not only vocabulary, pronunciation and grammar skills, but also the capacity to use these in real-world contexts. It is this last point which is often missed by traditional assessment tools, such as university entrance exams, often because it is considered too time-consuming and subjective to try to assess communicative ability. We hope to show you that task-based assessment is neither time-consuming nor subjective, and in fact includes many other advantages as well.Task-based assessment is easy, straightforward and, above all, meaningful for students and teachers alike. Simply put, one begins by looking at the appropriate completion of any given task first, and at the accuracy of the language used to complete it second. If the student can achieve a particular goal, or “outcome,” using English, then the student passes. Conversely, if they cannot achieve the outcome in a generally acceptable manner, then they fail.Here is a hypothetical task, including some specific parameters to be met:Task Tell a storyParameters •On a simple, familiar topic (e.g., family trip)•To a single sympathetic listener (e.g., a friend)•For a certain length of time (e.g., two minutes)Note that the parameters are important in order to keep tasks at a specific level. For example, ifyou were to change the “single sympathetic listener” to “an audience of English teachers during an entrance interview” it would make the same basic task far more challenging.Now, let us say you are grading the task outcome on a 10-point scale. If the student has appropriately completed the task (i.e., They have managed to tell a story according to these parameters, regardless of how “good” it actually was.), they pass, and now have a score of between 6 and 10.If they could not accomplish the task (e.g., They could not be understood at all, or if what they produced would not reasonably be called “a story.”) then they fail. If they spoke reasonably well but did not stay completely within the parameters (e.g., If they spoke for only one minute or they spoke on an entirely different kind of topic.) then they did not complete the task, and they fail. Of course, as the teacher, you may always choose to make allowances in such cases, but strictly speaking, in a task-based assessment model, this student would indeed fail.The next step is to assess how well the task was achieved. Now we can look at things such as pronunciation, vocabulary and grammar. Remember, if an appropriate outcome was achieved, then we already know that the student’s pronunciation, vocabulary and grammar are at an “acceptable” level for the task, communicatively speaking. They would not have managed to complete the task otherwise.Thus, task-based assessment works something like this:The underlying principle at work in task-based assessment is that tasks can be organized in a hierarchy which parallels “steps” in language proficiency because the language necessary to perform any particular task ultimately indicates an ability to perform that task’s “type.”This means two things:1.the restaurant” is easier than “ordering a pizza by phone,” which in turn is easier than “givingone’s impromptu opinion in a TV interview.” This is because the language required for eachis increasingly more difficult. At a restaurant, one needs only to speak in single words aidedby gestures to be reasonably understood. On the phone, it is necessary to be able to ask andrespond to simple complete questions with no visual cues. Finally, to participate in a TVinterview might require speaking for an extended period on an unprepared topic, requiring afacility with grammar and a large, generalized vocabulary.2. We can think of tasks as representative of certain “types” of communicative acts. It isreasonable to expect that a learner who can order a meal at a restaurant can also functionreasonably well at the dry cleaner’s or rent a car in person. Renting a car by phone, however,would be more like ordering a pizza, since the learner could not rely on gestures and othermeans of communicating. Finally, someone who could give a reasonable TV interview couldalso be expected to, say, participate as a student in a high school algebra course.Although how to rank tasks according to complexity and how to organize them into task types arestill unresolved issues for researchers and theorists, we have chosen to follow the lead of language descriptor systems such as the Canadian Language Benchmarks and the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages in our Student Book. Nevertheless, our tasks do not necessarily correlate with either of these, as our primary concerns were task complexity and authenticity. Widgets has therefore been informed by what has worked in our classes first, and by our knowledge and experience with the literature second. In the end, however, we have noted extremely high correlations with all of the major TBLT tenets proposed by researchers and theorists.Marcos Benevides and Chris ValvonaFurther reading on TBLT•For an excellent short summary of TBLT (here referred to as TBI, or Task-Based Instruction), we recommend Jane Willis’ introductory essay in Betty Lou Leaver andJane R. Willis, Task-Based Instruction in Foreign Language Education (Washington, D.C.:Georgetown University Press, 2004).• A more comprehensive, but very readable survey of TBLT, with an emphasis on classroom applications, is David Nunan, Task-Based Teaching (Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 2004).•Also comprehensive, but somewhat denser and exhaustively researched, is Rod Ellis, Task-based Language Learning and Teaching (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003).•Visit nguage.ca for more information on the Canadian Language Benchmarks.The Canada Language Benchmarks 2000: English as a Second Language for Adults by GrazynaPawlikowska-Smith can be downloaded from nguage.ca/pdfs/clb_adults.pdf. (Youwill need Adobe Reader to view this document.)•The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages can be downloaded from www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Framework_EN.pdf. (You will need Adobe Readerto view this document.)1. This article is intended to provide a brief explanation of TBLT as it applies to the Widgets course. For a deeper understanding of the theory and research behind the approach, we recommend that teachers read further. The number of articles and books on the topic has been growing exponentially in recent years, but a good starting point would be the three books listed in the “Further reading on TBLT” section.2. From Nunan (2004, pg. 3). Note that Nunan is here drawing on Skehan, Bygate, Swain, Ellis and others, and that these characteristics of a task are in fact now very widely agreed upon.3. In short, open tasks are those which do not have a predetermined outcome, such as a free chat, and closed tasks, such as describing a picture, are those which have one (or a few) “correct” outcomes. Research suggests that closed tasks are generally more useful for language practice (Ellis, 2003).。

英语教学模式的四种类型1、任务驱动型英语教学模式：任务驱动型英语教学模式是一种将学生分组，集中独立解决英语任务活动为主的教学模式。

英语任务活动可以是语言类任务，如角色扮演、话题谈论、演讲等。

也可以是非语言类任务，如看视频、文字游戏、拼图片、模拟实验等。

任务驱动型英语教学的特点在于以学生通过解决任务来学习英语，从而让学生有充分的机会进行实践练习，并且与别人交流，从而增加学生的学习勇气。

2、以英语为媒介的英语教学模式：以英语为媒介的英语教学模式，也称为TBLT（Task-based Language Teaching），是一种将任务作为具有特定目标的语言使用场景，将多种语言技能（如听力、口语、写作、读写能力）结合在一起的一种英语教学模式。

以英语为媒介的英语教学模式的特点是：学生们的表达能力可以从完成任务的过程中得到发展，他们也可以学习英语表达能力，如如何表达自己的观点、如何提出问题、如何向人报告进度等。

3、信息获取型英语教学模式：信息获取型英语教学模式（TIPT- Teaching Information Processing Techniques）是专为提高学生英语学习能力量设计的一种英语教学模式。

它以学习英语语法和能源结构为主要目标，将语言学习看作一种信息处理技术。

信息获取型英语教学模式的特点是：通过信息处理的实践，让学生学习英语的时候可以选择、比较、理解以及记忆，这可以帮助学生学习单词和句子，这样学生可以能用英语表达情感和观点，以及可以充满活力地参加英语活动。

4、模仿学习型英语教学模式：模仿学习型英语教学模式（IMIT- Imitation Modeling）是一种英语教学模式，它的特点是让学生学习模仿老师和同伴的英语发音，这样他们可以熟悉外语的发音和语言，更容易掌握正宗的发音，同时还可以培养学生的思维能力，降低学习的负担。

学生可以根据他们的兴趣主题，利用视频、音频材料来自行学习，这样可以增加学生英语学习的兴趣，从而让学生更有动力来学习英语。

一、交际法教学的概念及特点交际教学法(简称交际法)是英国应用语言学家Christohper Candi和Henry Widdowson等人在60年代后期创立的一种英语教学法。

交际法是以语言功能项目为纲,以发展交际能力为目标,以一系列社会语言学理论为基础的教学方法。

交际法的核心是交际能力,而交际能力的核心是使语言学习者能够运用所学的语言形式在不同场合对不同的对象进行有效而得体的交际。

交际法所强调的不是抽象的语言形式,而是不同语言形式的实际运用及其交际功能。

交际法的特点有以下几方面:1、其教学目的注重学生交际能力的培养。

使学生能够在不同的交际场合运用所学语言与不同的对象进行有效得体的交际。

2、交际教学法强调在课堂教学中学生是课堂的主角,应积极主动地参与课堂活动。

3、交际教学法强调语言的流利性,忽略语言的准确性。

老师应鼓励学生大胆用英语交际。

4、交际教学法重视对目的语比国家文化的学习,同时注意介绍中西文化差异和培养跨文化交际知识。

交际教学法的优势1. 强调语言的社会性功能该教学法认为语言是人们交际的需要，其目的就是使交际双方达到理解和沟通。

斯大林指出：“语言是属于社会现象之列的，从有社会存在的时候起，就有语言的存在。

”交际教学法的运用可以迎合具有不同语言的同一名族及拥有不同方言的同一名族间，要达成相互间信息的畅通。

英国语言学家H.G Widdowson曾说：“现实生活中，人们使用语言，不是造句，而是表达概念，通过造句的形式展现语言交际的功能。

”教育部对小学英语教学大纲的规定明确指出其教学目的：“培养学生基本的日常会话能力以及拼读、拼写能力。

同时，注重培养学生学习英语的兴趣，使他们喜欢学习英语和使用英语，为他们升入中学继续学习英语奠定初步的基础。

在英语教学过程中，培养学生良好的思想品德和行为习惯。

”不难发现教育部颁布的小学英语教学大纲是结合语言的实际交际功能，结合我国经济、文化发展制定的有阶段性的目标。

英语教学方法与策略英语教学一直是教育领域中比较重要和受关注的领域之一。

随着社会的发展和教育的进步，英语教学方法和策略也在不断更新和变化。

本文将介绍一些有效的英语教学方法和策略，帮助教师提升英语教学质量和效果。

一、任务型教学法任务型教学法（Task-based language teaching，TBLT）是一种基于任务导向的语言教学方法。

在该方法中，学生通过完成一系列的任务来学习英语，而不是仅仅学习语言本身。

这种方法可以帮助学生更好地理解和应用英语，增强他们的写作、口语、听力和阅读能力。

任务型教学法的教学流程大致如下：1.选择一个任务（例如写一篇文章、进行一个听力练习、模拟一次对话等）。

2.提供必要的背景知识和所需的语言技能。

3.学生们完成任务并相互交流。

4.教师提供反馈和评价。

任务型教学法在英语教学中的应用可以帮助学生们更好地理解英语的实际使用场景和语言规则。

它可以提高学生学习英语的积极性和主动性，使得学习过程更加有趣和有效。

二、游戏化教学游戏化教学是一种将游戏元素和教育元素相结合的教学方法。

它可以通过模拟游戏场景、增加竞争和互动，使得学习过程更加有趣和有动力。

在英语教学中，游戏化教学可以用于课堂复习、语法演练以及文化体验等方面。

以下是一些英语游戏的例子：1.Scrabble 字谜游戏：学生可以使用字母牌组成单词并获得分数。

2.英语填空游戏：学生需要填写正确的单词或词组来完成句子。

3.角色扮演游戏：学生们扮演不同的角色，模拟实际的英语交流场景。

游戏化教学可以激发学生的创造力和想象力，帮助他们更好地理解英语知识和运用语言。

此外，游戏化教学也可以提高学生的团队合作与沟通能力。

三、任务重心教学法任务重心教学法是一种强调“学生为中心”的英语教学方法。

该方法通过让学生积极参与、主动思考、独立探究等方式，帮助他们渐进地学习和应用英语知识和技能。

任务重心教学法的教学流程大致如下：1.教师设定一个任务（例如让学生自主编写一篇英语短文）。

任务型教学法英语缩写
任务型教学法英语缩写为：TBLT。

任务型教学法（Task-Based Language Teaching，TBLT）是一种以任务为中心的教学方法，旨在任务型教学法（Task-Based Language Teaching，TBLT）是一种以任务为中心的教学方法，旨在通过完成真实的语言任务来促进学生的语言学习。

该方法强调学生在交际中运用语言的能力，注重培养学生的自主学习和合作学习能力。

在任务型教学法中，教师会设计一系列与现实生活相关的任务，例如解决问题、交流信息、完成任务等。

学生需要通过与他人合作或独立完成任务来达到学习目标。

在这个过程中，学生不仅能够提高自己的语言技能，还能够培养自己的思维能力、解决问题的能力和团队合作精神。

任务型教学法的优点在于它能够激发学生的学习兴趣和积极性，提高学生的学习效果。

同时，它也能够帮助学生更好地理解和运用所学知识，从而更好地适应未来的工作和生活。

因此，任务型教学法已经成为现代英语教学中一种非常受欢迎的教学方法。

一、交际法教学的概念及特点交际教学法(简称交际法)是英国应用语言学家Christohper Candi 和Henry Widdowson 等人在60年代后期创立的一种英语教学法。

交际法是以语言功能项目为纲,以发展交际能力为目标,以一系列社会语言学理论为基础的教学方法。

交际法的核心是交际能力,而交际能力的核心是使语言学习者能够运用所学的语言形式在不同场合对不同的对象进行有效而得体的交际。

交际法所强调的不是抽象的语言形式,而是不同语言形式的实际运用及其交际功能。

交际法的特点有以下几方面:1、其教学目的注重学生交际能力的培养。

使学生能够在不同的交际场合运用所学语言与不同的对象进行有效得体的交际。

2、交际教学法强调在课堂教学中学生是课堂的主角,应积极主动地参与课堂活动。

3、交际教学法强调语言的流利性,忽略语言的准确性。

老师应鼓励学生大胆用英语交际。

4、交际教学法重视对目的语比国家文化的学习,同时注意介绍中西文化差异和培养跨文化交际知识。

交际教学法的优势1.强调语言的社会性功能该教学法认为语言是人们交际的需要，其目的就是使交际双方达到理解和沟通。

斯大林指出：“语言是属于社会现象之列的，从有社会存在的时候起，就有语言的存在。

”交际教学法的运用可以迎合具有不同语言的同一名族及拥有不同方言的同一名族间，要达成相互间信息的畅通。

英国语言学家H.G Widdowson曾说：“现实生活中，人们使用语言，不是造句，而是表达概念，通过造句的形式展现语言交际的功能。

”教育部对小学英语教学大纲的规定明确指出其教学目的：“培养学生基本的日常会话能力以及拼读、拼写能力。

同时，注重培养学生学习英语的兴趣，使他们喜欢学习英语和使用英语，为他们升入中学继续学习英语奠定初步的基础。

在英语教学过程中，培养学生良好的思想品德和行为习惯。

”不难发现教育部颁布的小学英语教学大纲是结合语言的实际交际功能，结合我国经济、文化发展制定的有阶段性的目标。