How to improve English as a second language teaching in China
Introduction
According to my Project narrative “my exam-oriented way of studying English”, I described my experience of learning English by focusing on grammar and test skills in order to achieve high grade on each English exam. My study experience contains a large amount of lecture on grammar points, practice on exercise paper, extra classes teaching test techniques. I mentioned in my narrative that the criteria measuring the high school English enter test result contains only reading ability and grammar knowledge.(Wang,2) The teaching strategies in my narrative is mainly teaching-fronted lecture on English theoretic knowledge and solution of exercise paper by using Chinese as the teaching language. Under this English education strategies, a large number of Chinese students have problems with putting sentences into authentic order, understanding meanings behind the linguistic contact, and have difficulty communicating with people in English fluently and in a proper way. In my research, I would focus on how to improve teaching English as a second language by comparing different strategies of teaching: applying critical thinking to English teaching, in which students improve their language proficiency by setting up argument fluently and critically; strengthening the pragmatic English skill by teaching about pedagogy and introducing social context and applying synthetic program (combination of bilingual and immersion) to create English environment in school.
According to my Project narrative “my exam-oriented way of studying English”, I described my experience of learning English by focusing on grammar and test skills in order to achieve high grade on each English exam. My study experience contains a large amount of lecture on grammar points, practice on exercise paper, extra classes teaching test techniques. I mentioned in my narrative that the criteria measuring the high school English enter test result contains only reading ability and grammar knowledge.(Wang,2) The teaching strategies in my narrative is mainly teaching-fronted lecture on English theoretic knowledge and solution of exercise paper by using Chinese as the teaching language. Under this English education strategies, a large number of Chinese students have problems with putting sentences into authentic order, understanding meanings behind the linguistic contact, and have difficulty communicating with people in English fluently and in a proper way. In my research, I would focus on how to improve teaching English as a second language by comparing different strategies of teaching: applying critical thinking to English teaching, in which students improve their language proficiency by setting up argument fluently and critically; strengthening the pragmatic English skill by teaching about pedagogy and introducing social context and applying synthetic program (combination of bilingual and immersion) to create English environment in school.
Source 1-Effective and critical thinking-enhanced EFL instruction by Ya-Ting C. Yang and Jeffrey Gamble
In the article, the authors write about the Critical thinking integrated method in English teaching as a second language. The idea is that the teachers leave students to apply critical thinking skills to their English learning rather than lecturing the students directly. Students are expected to achieve skills such as collecting relevant information and data, logically evaluating informative sources and solving problems by using their available knowledge. In order to do it, the authors separate the English education into four parts: reading, writing, listening, and speaking, and discuss how to apply the critical thinking skills in classes are taught. Rather than analyzing the structure of the article, the CT reading teaching strategy includes collecting the data and information from the article given, getting a sense of the author’s intention, and determining the general social context of the topic. The CT writing part requires students to think critically and write their own opinions and judgment into words under certain writing rules. The listening and speaking part linked to CT requires students to argue and debate hot spot social issues. The author believes that to apply the idea of critical thinking to class can not only improve critical thinking skills, which are crucial for any subject, but also improve students’ English proficiency. The research carried out by the author also contains a self-reflection part including comments from students about their feelings about using this method. Most of the comments and the test results of the students educated in the CT way confirm the effectiveness of this method.
The authors mention that critical thinking education aims to achieve the goal of students “accurately [interpreting] evidence, [identifying] salient arguments, [drawing] judicious conclusions, and fair mindedly [following] evidence.”(Yang and Gamble,400) This matches the way I want to change the elements of English as a second language education by stating in my narrative “ I recognized that I could not study English by answering questions, but by creating new thoughts and putting them into writing or dialogue.”(Wang,2) To achieve high English language proficiency, I suppose learners should be able to create something in English and to use language under varied contexts rather than composing an assignment using a model. Therefore critical thinking generates the creativity a language user should have due to not necessarily formal composition but rather utilizing it to encounter changing situations in daily dialogues. As I said in my narrative that “the exam was mainly relevant to reading and grammar rather than writing, listening and oral skills”(Wang,1), the critical thinking education method contains complete practice in both writing and oral skills derived from “thematic material in a specific discipline, [which] is also necessary for developing the vocabulary and key concepts necessary for critical evaluation and meaningful writing... By providing [a] collaborative environment, we believe that the students have the opportunity, ability and motivation to increase their listening comprehension”(Yang and Gamble,407) which is how the CT model addresses listening. In my opinion, the most surprising part of literacy that the CT method contributes to is the oral part, since the source mentions, “debating requires collaboration in proposing and defending a stance while questioning and rebutting opposing teams”, (Yang and Gamble,409)which practices a English learner’s ability to speak critically.
“Learning collaborating with social context, certain value, such as collaboration social interaction, co-construction of meaning, authenticity, and relevance to learners’ life experience, are integral to effective teaching and learning.”(Yang and Gamble,400) Yang and Gamble illustrate the importance of understanding social and cultural backgrounds as a complement to foreign language study. Although teaching critical thinking might be one of the best strategies to get students to learn and to develop English skills such as quickly gathering information from English articles, speaking fluently in English in public and getting a taste of the superficial understanding of social contexts because of related reading, it cannot aid students to delve into a more detailed understanding of social contexts and cultural elements, to communicate with native speakers in trivial daily chat, or to understand the meaning behind sentences without more time to react. To address the limit of the CT method applied in class, teachers can encourage students to learn “Outside the classroom by focusing their attention to implicatures and encouraging them to seek out practice opportunities.”(Kasper,56) Gabriele Kasper illustrated in the “Classroom research on interlanguage pragmatics” that the classroom can never satisfy the learning of a second language. In my opinion, critical thinking teaching as an in class strategy is still limited because it narrows English study to focusing on arguments. However, varied styles of English presentation through articles and oral speeches: routine talk with idioms, plain declarations of a certain issue, drama lyrics created by artists and words created by bloggers, etc, cannot be taught by the CT method. Not every style of English should be judged and sometimes it’s crucial for people to simply accept it as a cultural or social fact.
In the article, the authors write about the Critical thinking integrated method in English teaching as a second language. The idea is that the teachers leave students to apply critical thinking skills to their English learning rather than lecturing the students directly. Students are expected to achieve skills such as collecting relevant information and data, logically evaluating informative sources and solving problems by using their available knowledge. In order to do it, the authors separate the English education into four parts: reading, writing, listening, and speaking, and discuss how to apply the critical thinking skills in classes are taught. Rather than analyzing the structure of the article, the CT reading teaching strategy includes collecting the data and information from the article given, getting a sense of the author’s intention, and determining the general social context of the topic. The CT writing part requires students to think critically and write their own opinions and judgment into words under certain writing rules. The listening and speaking part linked to CT requires students to argue and debate hot spot social issues. The author believes that to apply the idea of critical thinking to class can not only improve critical thinking skills, which are crucial for any subject, but also improve students’ English proficiency. The research carried out by the author also contains a self-reflection part including comments from students about their feelings about using this method. Most of the comments and the test results of the students educated in the CT way confirm the effectiveness of this method.
The authors mention that critical thinking education aims to achieve the goal of students “accurately [interpreting] evidence, [identifying] salient arguments, [drawing] judicious conclusions, and fair mindedly [following] evidence.”(Yang and Gamble,400) This matches the way I want to change the elements of English as a second language education by stating in my narrative “ I recognized that I could not study English by answering questions, but by creating new thoughts and putting them into writing or dialogue.”(Wang,2) To achieve high English language proficiency, I suppose learners should be able to create something in English and to use language under varied contexts rather than composing an assignment using a model. Therefore critical thinking generates the creativity a language user should have due to not necessarily formal composition but rather utilizing it to encounter changing situations in daily dialogues. As I said in my narrative that “the exam was mainly relevant to reading and grammar rather than writing, listening and oral skills”(Wang,1), the critical thinking education method contains complete practice in both writing and oral skills derived from “thematic material in a specific discipline, [which] is also necessary for developing the vocabulary and key concepts necessary for critical evaluation and meaningful writing... By providing [a] collaborative environment, we believe that the students have the opportunity, ability and motivation to increase their listening comprehension”(Yang and Gamble,407) which is how the CT model addresses listening. In my opinion, the most surprising part of literacy that the CT method contributes to is the oral part, since the source mentions, “debating requires collaboration in proposing and defending a stance while questioning and rebutting opposing teams”, (Yang and Gamble,409)which practices a English learner’s ability to speak critically.
“Learning collaborating with social context, certain value, such as collaboration social interaction, co-construction of meaning, authenticity, and relevance to learners’ life experience, are integral to effective teaching and learning.”(Yang and Gamble,400) Yang and Gamble illustrate the importance of understanding social and cultural backgrounds as a complement to foreign language study. Although teaching critical thinking might be one of the best strategies to get students to learn and to develop English skills such as quickly gathering information from English articles, speaking fluently in English in public and getting a taste of the superficial understanding of social contexts because of related reading, it cannot aid students to delve into a more detailed understanding of social contexts and cultural elements, to communicate with native speakers in trivial daily chat, or to understand the meaning behind sentences without more time to react. To address the limit of the CT method applied in class, teachers can encourage students to learn “Outside the classroom by focusing their attention to implicatures and encouraging them to seek out practice opportunities.”(Kasper,56) Gabriele Kasper illustrated in the “Classroom research on interlanguage pragmatics” that the classroom can never satisfy the learning of a second language. In my opinion, critical thinking teaching as an in class strategy is still limited because it narrows English study to focusing on arguments. However, varied styles of English presentation through articles and oral speeches: routine talk with idioms, plain declarations of a certain issue, drama lyrics created by artists and words created by bloggers, etc, cannot be taught by the CT method. Not every style of English should be judged and sometimes it’s crucial for people to simply accept it as a cultural or social fact.
Source 2-Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in pragmatics by Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig from “Pragmatics in Language Teaching”
Kathleen suggests the introduction of pedagogy into second language teaching. Criticizing the “teacher-fronted” way of teaching, she believes that by introducing the secret behind the language helps can help learners speak more authentic English. However, the teacher-fronted way cannot achieve it because learner can only get contact with the surface of language by teachers’ partial instruction, rather than practically apply it to their daily dialogue. Therefore the education system should abandon teacher-fronted way of teaching, but modify it by adding more instruction of social context to help learners get the idea how to use the word or the sentence appropriately. To get the learners taste of social interaction, textbook and even teachers’ instruction are not sufficient to do so, the language environment becomes the crucial issue set up on the class. Sometimes learners find it more effective to learn the “secret rules” outside the classroom.
“Teacher-fronted talk” in the source is typically mentioned and described in my narrative as “our English teacher taught us a large amount of grammar knowledge and exam techniques, and let us practice papers every single class”.(Wang,1) Kasper defined it well as “the teacher-fronted format presents shorter and less complex openings and closings, a limited range of discourse markers. This simplification of discourse organization and management is an immediate consequence of IRF structure-initiation (by the teacher) – response (by a student) – follow up (by a teacher) –the basic interactional routine of teacher-fronted teaching. Monopolization of topic management, turn allocation and third-turn assessment by the teacher”. (Kesper,25)The teacher-fronted format cannot aid English proficiency improvement effectively. The aim to learn a second language language is to use it in daily life for business and social convenience. Learners receive limited and superficial knowledge of a language lectures in teacher-fronted format and response their understandings through homeworks and quizzes. This leads to the problem of limited opportunities for students to practice the language in the class and think critically about the social context of the language. The teacher-fronted format is like a cage giving stress to learners that they cannot think with open mind and accept varied ways of applying English. This makes students hardly understand and accept the pedagogical phenomenon. Besides arguing against the teacher-fronted format, Kathleen also argues that “text books cannot be counted on as a reliable source of pragmatic input for classroom language learners.” (Bardovi-Harling,p25)My narrative saying “I practiced with different articles and grammar exercises from varied textbooks” confirms this point, because I only find it useful for preparing quizzes but not for practical utilization with native speaker. (Wang,2)Therefore, both textbook and teacher-fronted format are lack of the introduction of how learners can use the language pragmatically, which is one of the basic skills to measure their proficiency.
Kathleen then highlights the importance of “making contextualized [and] pragmatically appropriate input available to learners from early stages of acquisition onward”.(Bardovi-Harling,31) To help us get more sense of detailed information how English as a second language can be taught in the pragmatic way, Kasper illustrated four ways teachers can work on: “emphasizing sociolinguistic variation, [differentiating] context factors, [identifying] varied speech acts”(Kasper,47) and “[noticing] non-verbal conduct.”(Kasper,43) These goals, hardly achieved by either text books or common lectures, require teachers to carefully set up specific activities in classes, such as “small group work”(Kasper,39) suggested by Kesper. He also says that this activity can encourage mutual help and help “both strong and weak learner to progress.”(Kasper,39) This point highly applies to the pragmatic language interaction in classes, because at most of the time strong learner get more opportunities to interact with teachers by presenting their ideas in English while weak learners sit silently without reaction. Although some of the weak learners may try to observe the those interactions between a strong learner and a teacher, this observation without participation cannot truly help improve language skills, especially oral skill in a large scale.
Depending on the importance of discussion in English in classes, it’s easily to figure that conversational factor is the biggest composition of pragmatic utilization of English. To practice this factor, the teacher need to plan the class according to detailed segments including “studying examined speech acts, discourse function, discourse organizations and management, discourse markers and strategies, repair and politeness.”(Kasper,34) Kesper approaches these goals by using strategies such as “featuring metapragmatic explanation about form-function relationships of the target structure, [introducing] form-composition in which students compared their own request realizations with those of native speakers and [assigning] form-search in which students identify the target strategies in provided request scenarios.” (Kasper,53)The teacher should install these ideas into students’ heads by both giving lectures and planning activities involving interaction in English.
Kathleen suggests the introduction of pedagogy into second language teaching. Criticizing the “teacher-fronted” way of teaching, she believes that by introducing the secret behind the language helps can help learners speak more authentic English. However, the teacher-fronted way cannot achieve it because learner can only get contact with the surface of language by teachers’ partial instruction, rather than practically apply it to their daily dialogue. Therefore the education system should abandon teacher-fronted way of teaching, but modify it by adding more instruction of social context to help learners get the idea how to use the word or the sentence appropriately. To get the learners taste of social interaction, textbook and even teachers’ instruction are not sufficient to do so, the language environment becomes the crucial issue set up on the class. Sometimes learners find it more effective to learn the “secret rules” outside the classroom.
“Teacher-fronted talk” in the source is typically mentioned and described in my narrative as “our English teacher taught us a large amount of grammar knowledge and exam techniques, and let us practice papers every single class”.(Wang,1) Kasper defined it well as “the teacher-fronted format presents shorter and less complex openings and closings, a limited range of discourse markers. This simplification of discourse organization and management is an immediate consequence of IRF structure-initiation (by the teacher) – response (by a student) – follow up (by a teacher) –the basic interactional routine of teacher-fronted teaching. Monopolization of topic management, turn allocation and third-turn assessment by the teacher”. (Kesper,25)The teacher-fronted format cannot aid English proficiency improvement effectively. The aim to learn a second language language is to use it in daily life for business and social convenience. Learners receive limited and superficial knowledge of a language lectures in teacher-fronted format and response their understandings through homeworks and quizzes. This leads to the problem of limited opportunities for students to practice the language in the class and think critically about the social context of the language. The teacher-fronted format is like a cage giving stress to learners that they cannot think with open mind and accept varied ways of applying English. This makes students hardly understand and accept the pedagogical phenomenon. Besides arguing against the teacher-fronted format, Kathleen also argues that “text books cannot be counted on as a reliable source of pragmatic input for classroom language learners.” (Bardovi-Harling,p25)My narrative saying “I practiced with different articles and grammar exercises from varied textbooks” confirms this point, because I only find it useful for preparing quizzes but not for practical utilization with native speaker. (Wang,2)Therefore, both textbook and teacher-fronted format are lack of the introduction of how learners can use the language pragmatically, which is one of the basic skills to measure their proficiency.
Kathleen then highlights the importance of “making contextualized [and] pragmatically appropriate input available to learners from early stages of acquisition onward”.(Bardovi-Harling,31) To help us get more sense of detailed information how English as a second language can be taught in the pragmatic way, Kasper illustrated four ways teachers can work on: “emphasizing sociolinguistic variation, [differentiating] context factors, [identifying] varied speech acts”(Kasper,47) and “[noticing] non-verbal conduct.”(Kasper,43) These goals, hardly achieved by either text books or common lectures, require teachers to carefully set up specific activities in classes, such as “small group work”(Kasper,39) suggested by Kesper. He also says that this activity can encourage mutual help and help “both strong and weak learner to progress.”(Kasper,39) This point highly applies to the pragmatic language interaction in classes, because at most of the time strong learner get more opportunities to interact with teachers by presenting their ideas in English while weak learners sit silently without reaction. Although some of the weak learners may try to observe the those interactions between a strong learner and a teacher, this observation without participation cannot truly help improve language skills, especially oral skill in a large scale.
Depending on the importance of discussion in English in classes, it’s easily to figure that conversational factor is the biggest composition of pragmatic utilization of English. To practice this factor, the teacher need to plan the class according to detailed segments including “studying examined speech acts, discourse function, discourse organizations and management, discourse markers and strategies, repair and politeness.”(Kasper,34) Kesper approaches these goals by using strategies such as “featuring metapragmatic explanation about form-function relationships of the target structure, [introducing] form-composition in which students compared their own request realizations with those of native speakers and [assigning] form-search in which students identify the target strategies in provided request scenarios.” (Kasper,53)The teacher should install these ideas into students’ heads by both giving lectures and planning activities involving interaction in English.
Source 3-Language development in Chinese learners by Shane N. Philipsons from “learning and teaching in the Chinese classroom”
This article draws a general picture of how a second language education should be operated for non-native speakers in China and further lists contributive suggestion of varied improvement on teaching strategies. The author begins with raising varied definitions of English proficiency that reflects the possible different teaching ways leading to different results. Then the author clarifies three second language education method: “bilingual programs”, “immersion programs” and “synthetic programs”,(N. And Philipsons,20)which separately mean teaching with two languages, teaching with the targeted language and combination of the both ways mentioned above. The authors discuss their ideas of how these three programs should be applied to people at different English level, at what time it works the best transferring “bilingual program” to “immersion program” and which way is best for Chinese education system. The “bilingual program” mentioned in source 3 highly matches the teaching method I said in my narrative that “My English teacher gave instruction in both English and Chinese”(Wang,1); I have argued it further in Project 2 article that bilingual instruction does help second language speakers to understand the targeted language well, especially for the grammar part, because it’s easier for both teachers and students in China tach and understand in the mother tongue. This method helps learners set up basic English theoretic knowledge, which is important for the further study. However, the authors of source 3 doubt the effectiveness of “bilingual program” as a long term method of teaching English by saying “their progress in English may not match the standard in the core subjects.”(N. And Philipsons,20) The reason “bilingual program” cannot benefit progress in English proficiency could be that students are required to know how to fluently use the language fluently and when they closely reach to that level, teaching in the first language may not be necessary for understanding and somewhat could become the barrier to creating an environment where students can immerse in their targeted second languages. The “immersion program” mentioned in source 3 is the opposite method to “bilingual program”. This method requires the teaching in a completely English and students are immersed in a perfect English environment. It could benefit the second language learning by forcing students to communicate and sometimes to think in an English way. The idea is to insert “English” in learners’ mind as much as how their first languages count at school time, because they need to study subjects in English, communicate with teachers in English, discuss in class in English and complete assignment in English. However, this may not be effective. In the source 3, the authors mentions “in such a context, opportunities to practice English outside school and within authentic situation is limited.”(N. And Philipsons,20) It is true according to my personal experience that although I studied in an international program and all the courses are taught in English. However, I never speak English with my classmates off-class and sometimes we cheated by using Chinese rather than English in class to save efficiency. Therefore, this method is hardly practically accomplished in China. The authors also raise a question that “When is the student ready for transition to an all-English program?(Padilla 2006, 575)” I don’t think it would be a good idea to apply “immersion” in China, since the overall social environment requires using mandarine rather than English. Therefore, it’s hard for Chinese learners have high proficiency at the beginning. Instead “synthetic programme(N.and Philipsons,21), a combination of two can be an option. Chinese high school, especially some international school, which consider English as an important subject, should firstly try to teach English class completely in English. The common high school may also introduce supplementary class focusing on practical utilization of English taught by native speakers. The class will include sharing cultural contexts, group discussion activities, oral speech presentation and large amount of direct interaction with native speaker teacher with teachers in English.
This article draws a general picture of how a second language education should be operated for non-native speakers in China and further lists contributive suggestion of varied improvement on teaching strategies. The author begins with raising varied definitions of English proficiency that reflects the possible different teaching ways leading to different results. Then the author clarifies three second language education method: “bilingual programs”, “immersion programs” and “synthetic programs”,(N. And Philipsons,20)which separately mean teaching with two languages, teaching with the targeted language and combination of the both ways mentioned above. The authors discuss their ideas of how these three programs should be applied to people at different English level, at what time it works the best transferring “bilingual program” to “immersion program” and which way is best for Chinese education system. The “bilingual program” mentioned in source 3 highly matches the teaching method I said in my narrative that “My English teacher gave instruction in both English and Chinese”(Wang,1); I have argued it further in Project 2 article that bilingual instruction does help second language speakers to understand the targeted language well, especially for the grammar part, because it’s easier for both teachers and students in China tach and understand in the mother tongue. This method helps learners set up basic English theoretic knowledge, which is important for the further study. However, the authors of source 3 doubt the effectiveness of “bilingual program” as a long term method of teaching English by saying “their progress in English may not match the standard in the core subjects.”(N. And Philipsons,20) The reason “bilingual program” cannot benefit progress in English proficiency could be that students are required to know how to fluently use the language fluently and when they closely reach to that level, teaching in the first language may not be necessary for understanding and somewhat could become the barrier to creating an environment where students can immerse in their targeted second languages. The “immersion program” mentioned in source 3 is the opposite method to “bilingual program”. This method requires the teaching in a completely English and students are immersed in a perfect English environment. It could benefit the second language learning by forcing students to communicate and sometimes to think in an English way. The idea is to insert “English” in learners’ mind as much as how their first languages count at school time, because they need to study subjects in English, communicate with teachers in English, discuss in class in English and complete assignment in English. However, this may not be effective. In the source 3, the authors mentions “in such a context, opportunities to practice English outside school and within authentic situation is limited.”(N. And Philipsons,20) It is true according to my personal experience that although I studied in an international program and all the courses are taught in English. However, I never speak English with my classmates off-class and sometimes we cheated by using Chinese rather than English in class to save efficiency. Therefore, this method is hardly practically accomplished in China. The authors also raise a question that “When is the student ready for transition to an all-English program?(Padilla 2006, 575)” I don’t think it would be a good idea to apply “immersion” in China, since the overall social environment requires using mandarine rather than English. Therefore, it’s hard for Chinese learners have high proficiency at the beginning. Instead “synthetic programme(N.and Philipsons,21), a combination of two can be an option. Chinese high school, especially some international school, which consider English as an important subject, should firstly try to teach English class completely in English. The common high school may also introduce supplementary class focusing on practical utilization of English taught by native speakers. The class will include sharing cultural contexts, group discussion activities, oral speech presentation and large amount of direct interaction with native speaker teacher with teachers in English.
Conclusion
The way to progress English as a second language in high school in China is a gradual and hard process. It involves not only improve the method of teaching of linguistics but also bringing the deep and complicated social contexts in class. The critical thinking method, which trains linguistic skills on different areas, complemented with pragmatic teaching involving introducing cultural phenomenon behind the language. To apply to specific Chinese situation that students are on different level and English environment don’t exist, it’s important to balance the percentage of both Chinese and English utilization in class.
The way to progress English as a second language in high school in China is a gradual and hard process. It involves not only improve the method of teaching of linguistics but also bringing the deep and complicated social contexts in class. The critical thinking method, which trains linguistic skills on different areas, complemented with pragmatic teaching involving introducing cultural phenomenon behind the language. To apply to specific Chinese situation that students are on different level and English environment don’t exist, it’s important to balance the percentage of both Chinese and English utilization in class.
Bibliography
Bardovi-Harling. “Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in pragmatics.” Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge University Press: 2001. print. Gabriele Kasper. “Classroom research on interlanguage pragmatics.” Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge University Press: 2001. Print. Gabriele Kasper. “Pragmatic and Grammatical awareness A function of the learning environment?” Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge University Press: 2001. print. Ya-TIng C. Yang and Jeffrey Gamble. “Effective and practical critical thinking-enhanced EFL instruction.” ELT Journal: English Language Teachers Journal Oct2013, Vol. 67 Issue 4. print. p398-412 Shane N and Phillipson. “Language development of Chinese learners.”Learning and teaching in the Chinese classroom. Hong Kong University Press. print. P204-229. Ruoran Wang. “My exam-oriented way of studying English.”http://rachelwang.weebly.com/project-2.html |