Attempts of PAD Teaching Methodology in Modern Chinese College English Writing Class: A Grounded Theory Based Perspective
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1205.08Keywords:
PAD teaching methodology, College English Writing class, modern Chinese college students’ language learning, a grounded theory based perspectiveAbstract
This research paper attempts to have an in-depth understanding of PAD (presentation-assimilation-discussion) teaching methodology applied in a modern Chinese college course, which is College English Writing class, from the perspective of the Grounded Theory. Based on a detailed introduction and analysis of the Grounded Theory, this research makes efforts to answer such a question that how PAD teaching methodology is applied in modern Chinese College English Writing class as well as how it helps Chinese college students learn in their College English Writing class. The PAD teaching methodology in modern Chinese College English Writing class is a new type of teaching mode, being divided into three processes: presentation, assimilation and discussion (which is the co-called PAD). The key innovation in the PAD teaching methodology in modern Chinese College English Writing class is to stagger the lectures and discussions in time, so that students have a week time for personalized assimilation, which mobilizes students’ interest in learning, promotes students’ enthusiasm, cultivates students’ learning autonomy, and improves the quality of the teaching of College English Writing class. As a qualitative research, this paper employs methods of literature synthesis and comparative analysis to reach such a conclusion that PAD teaching methodology does help and facilitate modern Chinese college students in their learning of College English Writing class. An important perspective from the Grounded Theory has provided a strong support to further verify the necessary role that PAD teaching methodology has played in modern Chinese College English Writing class.
References
Bock, J. K. (1986). Syntactic Persistence in Language Production. Cognitive Psychology, 18: 355-387.
Chandler, E., & Jarvis, M. (2001). Angels on Psychology. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes Limited.
Charma, Z. K. (2000). Grounded Theory: Objectivist and Constructivist Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Daniels, H. (2011). Vygotsky and Psychology: Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Cognitive Development (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley Blackwell.
Glaser, B. G. (1998). Doing Grounded Theory: Issues and Discussions. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glasserfeld, E. V. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. Washington, D.C.: Falmer Press.
Grindstaff, K., & Richmond, G. (2008). Learners’ perceptions of the roles of peers in a research experience: Implications for the apprenticeship process, scientific inquiry, and collaborative work. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 251-272.
Johnson, D. R., & Johnson, F. P. (2010). Joining Together. (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Karsenty, R. (2010). Nonprofessional mathematics tutoring for low-achieving students in secondary schools: A case study. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 74, 1-21.
Kay, H., & Dudley, E. T. (1998). Genre: What Teachers Think. ELT Journal, 52(4), 308- 314.
Keramati, M. (2010). Effect of cooperative learning on academic achievement of physics course. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 29, 155-173.
Lee, C. D. (2000). Signifying in the zone of proximal development. In C. D. Lee & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Vygotskian Perspectives on Literacy Research: Constructing Meaning through Collaborative Inquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 191-255.
Santrock, J. W. (2011). Educational Psychology (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Seow, A. (2002). The Writing Process and Process Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stapleton, P. (2001). Critical Thinking in Japanese L2 writing: Rethinking tired constructs. ELT Journal, 56(3), 250-257.
Steffe, L., & Thompson, P. (2000). Teaching experiment methodology: Underlying principles and essential elements. In A. E. Kellry & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 267-306.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 158-183.
Strauss, A., & Glaser, B. (1987). Grounded Theory Methodology: An Overview. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Thomas, G., & James, D. (2006). Reinventing Grounded Theory: Some Questions about Theory, Ground and Discovery. British Educational Research Journal, 32(6):767-795.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wu, Y. (2017). Reading for Writing-The Application of Genre Analysis in College English Writing in China. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 7(10), 883-891.
Yan, X., & Horwitz, E. K. (2008). Learners’ Perceptions of How Anxiety Interacts With Personal and Instructional Factors to Influence Their Achievement in English: A Qualitative Analysis of EFL Learners in China. Language Learning, 58(1): 151-183.
Zhang, X. (2015). The PAD Class: a new paradigm for university classroom teaching. Society of Photo-optical Instrumentation Engineers. Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series.
Zhang, X. (2018). The PAD Class: The New Wisdom of Chinese Education in the Classroom. Beijing: Science Press.
