Speaker 2:

　　(Topic: Your opinion on using a mobile phone while driving a car)

　　More and more drivers use + mobile phones when + they are driving I think + We ought to get rid of it. Some people think it’s + a really good idea ++ but a lot of us don’t agree. To use mobile phone in a car can cause too many dangerous accidents to happen. + even ++ even if not every serious accident, drivers using them are often + causing problems for other drivers ++ and people walking on the street are also in big trouble from these drivers. I think we should do something about them soon.

　　The speaker’s answer is weak because it includes vague generalizations and repetitious ideas and seems to raise more questions than it answers: Why are mobile phone not good idea? How do they cause accident? What are the “problem” and “trouble” the speaker refers to? What exactly does “do something about them” mean? The speaker obviously did have some ideas in mind, but these ideas are not clear to his audience because they are not adequately developed with supporting details.

　　Speaker3:

　　(Topic: Why do you like /dislike one of your room/classmates so much?)

　　She is not + no longer my friend now. To stay with her was unbearable. She always thinks everything she has is the best. ++ I hate this. She also has many bad habits, and ++ she often shows very childish behavior. Not many people like to make friends with her, I am sure.

　　The speaker starts her discussion with a clear topic and offers supporting reasons from which her listeners immediately draw a mental picture of what her friend was like. However, there are no details to further support her points. She could have further elaborated her ideas to help the audience to accept her standpoint.

　　Speaker 4:

　　(Topic: Explain the reasons why a particular product has enjoyed growing favor among young consumers)

　　I think + Japanese cars are the most popular ones in the world. I think+ I think there several reasons for it. + I think Japanese are more effective+ efficient and hardworking workers than Americans. The quality of their products is very good, + reliable. Japanese are also very innovative; they can quickly design new cars. Now many new cars are made in Japan. I don’t know if I am able to buy a Japanese car when I graduate.

　　以上四个例子基本反映了当前学生在高级口语课堂中的一些主要问题，之所以挑选以上四例是为了更好得论述在这一阶段教学的重心是如何提升学生的综合整体思维能力。

　　思维和表达式密不可分的

　　在口语课堂上介绍思维技巧源于思维与表达密不可分这一理念。尽管思维和表达被认为是两个不同的活动阶段，但他们彼此息息相关。一方面，我们不能清晰地表达自己如果我们不能准确的思考一概念，反之亦然。

　　通常来说，演讲的主要目的是为了传递信息和说服人们接受自己的观点，要达此目的需要一下准备：收集信息，应用逻辑推理，善于用原创的观点来激发听众，也就是仅仅依赖于回顾信息是远远不够的，发言必须观察演讲场所，分析问题和听众，依据自己的理解得出结论。

　　有效地思维方式会大大提高语言的组织能力。这包括一系列的问题：演讲的问题是什么?有几种选择方案?每一种方案的优劣何在?解决方案是什么?解决方案的有效性?

　　口语课堂上培养思维方式

　　在高级英语口语课堂上，教师的教学已不再是简单的词汇加句法加发音而应侧重培养学生的整体思维能力。以下介绍几种口语课堂上培养思维能力的方式：

　　教授对思维的认识

　　学生应了结思维的六个不同阶段：认知，理解，应用，分析，综合级评价。评价是最难的阶段，它要求学生不仅仅回顾所学的知识，还要理解并加以应用和分析。

　　培养学生的思维态度

　　许多学生不习惯于在演讲应用分析和发展的思维方式，这就要求老师积极鼓励学生多思善疑并能海纳百川接受不同观点。

　　培养辨证的思维

　　这一观点不是简简单单批评而是让学生习惯于从事务的方方面面面去认识思考问题。

　　结论

　　在这篇文章中，我们探讨了为什么以及如何在英语口语教学中提高学生的口语交际能力。主要的思路是收集了我们在口语教学中常遇的困境,经过仔细的分析, 将其划分为两个层次，即，在较低层次上用英语表达思想时常常出现的语言错误和在较高层次上用英语表达思想时常常出现的非语言问题, 并提出了在不同层次对待这些教学困境应采取的不同策略。我们希望此文章能为中国大学英语口语教学的改革尽微薄之力并起到抛砖引玉的作用让更多的同行们加入到探讨如何有效提升大学非英语专业学生英语口语教学质量的队伍中并提出各种各样的应对策略。

　　References

　　Brown, G. & G.Yule. 1983. Teaching the Spoken Language: An Approach Based on the Analysis of Conversational English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

　　Chaffee, J. 1991. Thinking Critically. 3rd edition. Boston MA: Houghton Mifflin.

　　Dance, F. E. X. & C. C. Zak-Dance. 1996. Speaking Your Mind: Private Thinking and Public Speaking. 2nd edition. Dubuque IA: Kendall/Hunt.

　　Melntosh, Celce-Murcia. 1969. Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language. Rowley Massachusetts. Newbury House.

　　Paulston, C.B & M.N. Bruder. 1976. Teaching English as a Second language: Techniques and procedures. Massachusetts, Winthrop Publishers.

　　Richards, J. C. 1974. Errors Analysis. London: Longman Group Limited.

 2/2   首页 上一页 1 2