日本英语老师毕业论文

英语教育相关毕业论文

大学的英语教育意义重大，但是当前的英语教学存在着诸多问题，英语教师必须进行反思，才能提高教学水平，从而实现英语教学的意义。下面是我给大家推荐的英语教育相关毕业论文，希望大家喜欢!

《浅谈大学英语教学的反思》

摘要： 大学的英语教学可以帮助学生更好地与外界交流，在交流和学习的基础上掌握外国先进的科学技术和思想，给学生更多更好的机会去了解和探索外面的世界。而在不断的学习和了解中，学生的视野更加广阔，同时也掌握用更加开阔的眼光去看待世界，用更积极的心态去了解这个世界，用好奇心去挖掘、发现这个世界。大学的英语教学意义重大，但是当前的英语教学存在着诸多问题，英语教师必须进行反思，才能提高教学水平，从而实现英语教学的意义。

关键词： 大学 英语教学 反思

1 大学英语教学的意义

当前的世界是一个整体，随着国与国之间的联系交流的密切，世界也变得更加开放，并有地球村之称。这就很需要一门共同的语言来实现各国之间的交流和联系，美国和欧洲的很多发达国家因为经济和政治上的优势，英语自然而然就成为了世界语言。因此，大学英语教学就非常重要，只有好的英语水平才能帮助学生更多地了解当前的世界，认识和了解外国的先进文化和先进的科学技术，学习到人家的优秀思想，掌握发达国家发展的一些秘诀，同时这也是使祖国得到更好发展的重要方法。中国当前还属于发展中国家，发展过程中还存在着很多的不足，只有向更发达的国家学习，了解其发达的真正原因，才能改变中国的现状，促进中国由发展中国家向发达国家推进。了解大学英语教学的意义，是对大学英语教学进行改革和创新的前提条件，对大学英语教学的进步起到很大的作用。

2 大学英语教学的反思

教师提高英语教学质量的反思

提高自身的英语水平

大学英语教师作为学生英语学习的一个重要媒介，必须保证自身的`英语素质。俗话说，活到老，学到老。教师需要不断进行学习，在原有的基础上继续努力，不断进行知识的积累和运用，从听说读写各个方面完善自己，使自身的英语水平得到提高。英语的学习是一个不断积累的过程，作为一门语言，非一朝一夕可以提高的，只有找对学习方法，并通过每天的坚持不懈，日积月累，最终积累到一定的量，实现质的飞越。教师自身英语水平的提高，是帮助学生提高英语能力，使其有能力将其作为生存的技能，同时对促进实现英语教学的意义有很大的作用。

在教学的过程中进行反思

当前的大学英语教学还不成熟，并没有形成一套完整合理的英语教学模式，英语教师的教学还处在不断摸索和改进的过程当中。大学英语教师必须在教学的过程之中发现问题，反思问题，解决问题。这是一个不断探索的课题，大学英语教师只有通过课堂教学的积累，在教学中不断改进和创新，才能促进实现英语教学的水平。大学英语教师可以通过在课后写总结的方式，对每堂课进行反思，来不断提高自己的教学能力。不仅如此，高校英语教师之间还可以进行交流，交换彼此的经验心得，有时候一个人是很难想到更好的方法的，而在与其他教师的交流中，可以帮助教师提高自己的英语水平，对于疑惑也更容易想出解决方法，从而实现大学英语教学的改革和创新。

教学方法的反思

作为科技时代，科学技术的发展和应用，使得科技在教学中越来越发挥作用。大学英语教学也需要不断的改革，尤其是教学方法。在教学过程中，有必要加入多媒体的因素，积极运用多媒体教学来丰富英语教学方式，不仅在听力上给学生以现场直观的感受，写作和阅读上也能给学生带来很大帮助。教师通过制作PPT，上网查找资料来使教学的内容多样化，使学生在学习过程中开阔眼界，了解更多的知识，丰富自己的内涵。除了使用多媒体和网络之外，还需要大学英语教师在教学中尽可能多的使用英语教学，让同学们习惯英语环境，更好的提升学生的英语学习能力，在潜移默化中促进学生在英语学习中的进步。

合理评价，及时表扬

教师在教学之后通常会通过考试来测验学生对教学内容的把握，但是这往往不是很准确的，学生很多时候会由于考试时的紧张等因素导致发挥的失常，这就需要教师进行恰当的判断，通过对学生平时学习状况和测验结果各方面综合的考虑，来评价学生。教师对学生的评价非常重要，要积极客观的对待学生，而不能粗鲁主观的评判学生。学生的学习是需要鼓励和表扬的，多鼓励学生，对学生的学习成果及时的表扬，有助于学生提高自己的自信，给学生下一阶段学习的动力。在学生的学习过程中，教师起着相当重要的作用，教师必须认识到这一点，才能给予学生更多更好的帮助。

学生提高英语学习水平的反思

认真听课，养成良好的学习习惯

大学中，学生的学习不像高中那样有班主任一遍又一遍的督促，这就很需要学生养成良好的学习习惯。大学英语的学习更是如此。毕竟英语的学习不是一朝一夕就可以学成的，必须培养自己良好的学习习惯，在课堂中认真听讲，在课后要积极主动地背诵单词，进行深入的学习，并且做到坚持不懈，这样才能真正的实现自身英语水平的提高，才有可能以专业为以后生存的技能，在社会上安生立命。学习对学生来说是重中之重，英语专业的尤其需要良好习惯的相伴，只有养成好的习惯，才能从根本上帮助学生英语学习水平的提高。

积极主动扩展课外内容

对大学的英语学习来说，课内的英语知识是不够的，课堂的英语教学也是无法将教师所掌握的的知识全部传授给学生的，这就需要学生自己多寻找一些与英语学习的相关材料来补充自己，比如英美的名著，报刊杂志，以及习语等，这些材料不仅有助于提高了学生的英语水平，而且丰富了学生对其他国家文化的了解，更深入地把握这门语言。

3 总结

当前大学的英语教学无疑是在不断进步的，但依然存在着很多的问题。只有对这些问题不断进行反思，才能改进大学英语教学。对教师来说，必须增强自身的英语水平，对各方面进行反思，并进行创新和改革，才能给大学英语教学带来巨大的变化，推进大学英语教学的发展。学生也需要进行反思，并通过培养良好的学习习惯和扩展课外知识来提高自己的英语水平。对大学英语教学的反思，是英语教学改革和创新的催化剂，对大学英语教学意义重大。

参考文献：

[1]孙晓丽.对大学英语教学改革的反思[J].安徽工业大学学报，2013，(1).

[2]任仙仙，武建华.独立学院大学英语教学的反思与建议[J].高等建筑教育，2013，(5).

[3]黄蓉.浅谈大学英语的反思性教学[J].成功，2013，(23).

作者简介：马月英，北京信息科技大学外国语学院，北京 100083

通常毕业答辩分两部分。先是学生自己介绍毕业论文的内容，之后由专家及老师们针对论文内容提问请学生做答。

日语毕业论文主要是有自己的观点和想法，之前也是费了好久时间，还是寝室哥们给的莫文网，有高手帮助，轻松多了浅谈大学生日语会话能力的培养日语容易混淆的发音难点浅探通过对日语和汉语的不同点的考察——分析中国人学习日语的难点日语听力课堂中听解能力培养的探索——以提高新日语能力考试“听解”准确率为例高校日语教育存在的问题及对策分析试论日语朗读教学的功效与原则“交际教学法”在应用型本科日语课堂教学中的应用浅谈文学作品在日语基础教学中的应用现代日语动词的活用分类法从模糊语义学的角度分析日语数量词“一”的省略现象论英语动词对日语动词的迁移试论日语的难点及其学习方法浅谈高职院校大学日语教学改革日语中的授受动词和日本人的恩惠意识基于日语依赖表现分析的日语教育探析三语习得理论对英语专业第二外语(日语)教学影响的探析日语反事实条件句的表现形式特征谈日语近义表达的异感修正——以[～ぅさに、～前に]为例日资企业员工日语研修教育之探讨易对日语初学者构成学习障碍的几处语言表现试论引导学生利用网络进行日语自主学习浅谈母语对日语学习的影响高职院校日语兼职教师教学质量的现状与思考应用网络教学辅助日语听力教学的探讨关于针对日语初学者语音教学方法的探讨日语教学中应用能力的培养研究谈日语近义表达的异感修正——以[～ラちに、～前に]为例浅谈在日语学习时应注意的几个问题外来语对日语及日本文化的效应分析让高职日语课堂魅力无穷浅谈多媒体技术在日语教学中的应用论日语词汇学习中认知策略的运用培养学生日语自主性学习能力的尝试二外日语教学艺术初探日语被动句的语用分析日语“同音词”的再认识日本的日语教育与日语教授法管窥日语基数词的声调汉字造字模式与日语的“国字”论21世纪日语专业学生的素质大学二外日语教学中教师的导向作用

What Environmental Disaster? We have developed a huge and thriving society; and in the process we deforest huge sections of land for living and livestock grazing. This decreases oxygen and increases carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; possibly adding to global warming though the greenhouse effect. This mass population produces mass amounts of waste, so to deal with that we just throw it into the ground, which in turn contaminates our water supply and contributes to further deforestation. We develop motorized transportation; and then burn non-renewable fossil fuels that put lead, carbon monoxide, sulfur and nitrogen oxides, ozone, excess carbon dioxide, and other harmful particulates into the atmosphere (Skjel & Whorton 95-108). This produces dangers like smog and cancer and contributes to global warming. In the production of fuel we exhaust oil reserves and pollute the oceans through spills from tankers. This endangers wilderness and wildlife. We produce an inert, easily producible propellant for aerosols; and then realize it's only inert on the ground. Once it's bombarded by UV ray in the upper atmosphere it releases a highly destructive ion that wreaks havoc on the protective ozone layer shielding us from those same deadly UV rays, creating a hole in the layer allowing the radiation through, increasing cancer and other genetic defects. We build rockets capable of going into space and breaking the earth's gravitational pull; and then immediately start to pollute this new environment with spent rockets and boosters along with other miscellaneous particles of debris (Curran and Haw 3). Michael Crichton writes, "What we call nature is a complex system of far greater subtlety than we are willing to accept. We make a simplified view of nature and then botch it all up. ...You have to understand what you don't understand. How many times must the point be made? How many times must we see the evidence? We build the Aswan Dam and claim it is going to revitalize the country. Instead, it destroys the fertile Nile Delta, produces parasitic infestation, and wrecks the Egyptian economy" (Jurassic Park 91). To the common person our current situation contains little hope. All the advancement and improvements have done little to further our species. With each one has come a new environmental issue. You almost need to evaluate each situation in terms of positives and negatives. However, at the root of all this chaos you'll find anthropocentrism, a human centered way of thinking. This way of thinking as an attitude, and moral theory, centers on humans as the highest of the significant beings. The theory views nature and the environment in terms of their use value for humans only (Michaels 7). So all of the above developments with costs can be justified through their usefulness for humans. The human centered ethic is deeply rooted in the past through the ancient Greek and Roman societies. To pursue further development based on this ethic would be disastrous. With our current numbers of population and rate of growth we're just asking for an environmental catastrophe of the highest magnitude to act as a wake up call. Granted that a great deal of the population realizes that unless action is taken today then we'll have to face that disaster tomorrow. The principle question is how to go about alleviating and repairing the damage we've already caused. We also need to address how to prevent doing further damage for the sake of future generations. The only problem with this view is that it is still a human centered ethic. It still sees the environment as a thing to be utilized by humans for their own pleasure. It doesn't do enough. The problems aren't getting fixed. Better ways of doing things are being researched, but the underlying problem is not receiving any attention. So the environmental downward spiral is only slowed down and is not fixed. We've still got the same problems. To take the conservationist attitude further you would see all sentient beings as holding moral standing and due consideration. This includes most of the animals in the world; any animal capable of experiencing pleasure and pain. Through these experiences you form the basis for the extended moral theory. If the animals perish through their habitat's destruction or outside influences, then their future pleasures will no longer be. When you take into account whole societies and communities of animals then the added value to the environment increases exponentially as you combine their happiness with the happiness never experienced by their future generations (Singer 275-276). So by taking this viewpoint you place even more intrinsic value on the environment through the experiences of all sentient animals involved. But at a time when our behavior may well lead us to extinction, I see no reason to assume that we have any awareness at all. We are stubborn, self-destructive conformists. Any other view of our species is just a self-congratulatory delusion" (The Lost World 7-8). Granted this does not present a case for sentience on the basis of pain vs. pleasure, but it does present an interesting way to think about classifying sentience. So you can see drawing the cut off line for even lower animals could present considerable challenges. You have trouble reaching an adequate definition of "sentient." You are now facing how much awareness a creature has to perceive pain and pleasure along with joy from anticipation of future events to consider it morally significant. If a cat is significant, but not a fish, what makes the cat a moral patient while the fish is not? Where is there a difference? There is a problem of arbitrarily assigning moral value when actual feelings and emotions are beyond description. To go a step further away from human sentience you would hold all living thing to be of moral value. This would then bring plants and non-sentient animals into the picture. This view holds life as the ultimate intrinsic value. Beings have moral value in just being alive. So life is viewed as an intrinsic good, and no verifying pleasures or pains being experienced are needed to allot this worth. Anything living is held with a reverence for that life (Singer 277-278). 2】The Environmental Revolution - We Can Make a Difference! Since the first time having blown bubbles in my Open Water class, I've logged over 100 dives. This love for diving has evolved into an intense passion towards protecting the ocean, and all of its inhabitants. I've chosen to put my love for the ocean into action, as an environmentalist. Actually, this passion extends out towards efforts that look to help all the planetary domains gain protection. As such, I appreciate when others take the time educate me on those other realms for which I know less about. To be an environmentalist, one must choose the cause which resonates within ones sole, and run with it. One must be willing to educate people about the environment while being open to education from those people who support other causes. Together we can help each other towards learning how to become a true "Environmentalist". We must all encourage positive collaboration and education as opposed to being against something. For example, sharks are being decimated to near extinction simply for their fins. The fins are used to make Shark Fin soup, a delicacy popular particularly in Taiwan and Singapore. It would be easy to blame these communities for creating the demand. However, in conversing with Asian environmentalists, they liken the culture around eating Shark Fin soup to the culture surrounding Americans eating turkey for Thanksgiving dinner. There are ongoing efforts to educate these people, by members of their own community, on just how dangerous this cultural practice is and the devastating impact this could have on their (our) world if all the sharks were to disappear as a result. Environmentalists everywhere are making a difference! Famous restaurants have taken endangered Swordfish off their menus, these same restaurants are buying wild-caught salmon (and boosting the economy of local fisheries in the process), laundromats have started selling green detergent, this just to name a few of these enlightened changes. This is how the "Environmentalist" can begin the revolution. Just find something you believe in and make a stand. One by one, we can make our planet a cleaner place to live, steeped in healthy bio-diversity for generations to come. 3Giving 1% to Protect Our Environment Though most of the world's surface is covered by water, since the Earth is so large relative to human horizons, there doesn't appear to be a shortage of land. However, when one begins to think of land in terms of a human resource, ., a producer of food, a provider of wood, an expanse for passage, one realizes that many portions are either too lacking in nutrients, too high in elevation, too prone to flooding, or too cold or ice-ridden for extensive use. Furthermore, habitable lands are becoming less abundant due to desertification (the expansion of deserts due to the misuse of land), agricultural expansions and rising sea levels. Since humans aren't the only species that need land, it isn't surprising that this resource is becoming limited for other forms of life too. In part as a result of this added stress on living things, we are also witnessing extinctions of grand proportions-at a rate of many thousands species per year. Since these losses are largely due to human actions, such as deforestation and non-native species introduction, many are beginning to pay attention to how we use and protect land. Recent ecological research has also recently provided a message of hope concerning the future well-being of life on this planet. In the world today, scientists estimate that the Earth is losing at least 1 percent of species every ten years, and the percentage loss may be close to 5 percent. Even if only the lower rate persists, the Earth will have lost near half of its biological diversity by 2070. Can this be possible? Many esteemed scientists think so. While the future appears bleak, several recent insights tell us that we have the potential to significantly reduce what amounts to a biotic holocaust, one not witnessed on Earth for over 60,000,000 years. While there are hopeful signs in the area of human activities (such as increased acreage of nature preserves and national parks), the hope of which I speak of here stems from specific characteristics of the other forms of life which may enable us to mutually coexist in the long term. The Earth's organisms are wonderfully varied in size, shape, function, behavior, and genetic code. One only need to consider that there are ~ 15,000 species of butterflies and ~50,000 species of mushrooms worldwide to begin to fathom the immensity of variety that this planet has. Yet, as different as the species come, the bulk of living things are also similar in a couple of very important ways. Most living things live in relatively small regions and do not travel far from where they or their parents were born. In fact, recent biological and ecological work has determined that most land species are very particular about where they live. As opposed to humans whose choice of home is largely driven by economic and political forces (mobility driven by availability of wealth or forced relocation), flora and fauna find themselves in locations for which they are adapted. We now know that many species of insects and plants have a very restricted range in which they found. Very few organisms are ubiquitous like we are. It goes without saying that you aren't going to find a Great Blue Heron or a Grizzly visiting Antarctica or climbing Mt. Everest; yet you might find the snow bear (recently discovered and previously known as the Abominable Snowman) doing the latter. Recognizing that most living things are rather localized during their lifetimes has profound implications, both hopeful and cautious. On the one hand, it suggests that we can learn a lot about species by parking our scientific minds in specific locations. On the other hand, it means that if we destroy even small areas of the globe we are likely causing great and even irreversible destruction to the species that are found there. We have also determined that there are specific locations on our planet where a disproportionate number of species live. For our species, Asia serves as the homeland for most. In fact more than 60 percent of humans lives on this largest of continents (which only makes up 24 percent of the land surface on the planet). With other life forms, geographic concentrations sometimes defy description. We only recently became aware that the vast majority of terrestrial (as distinguished from oceanic or riparian) species collectively live on just 1 percent of the Earth's land surface. (If humans lived at a comparable concentration level, we'd all have to cluster together in an area roughly the size of Antarctica or twice that of Australia.) This mind-blowing realization has prompted those that have been struggling to protect organisms a new way of thinking about such protection. They have concluded that if we humans could somehow find a way to avoid disturbing just 1-2 percent of the land surface, nearly 70 percent of the world's terrestrial species might be able to survive. Recently some conservationists have refocused their attention on these unique locations. The regions of the globe that contain such a splendid array of biological diversity have been named "hot spots," a name that communicates their critical status. In what has to be the most beautiful books I have seen, Hotspots represents the collective work of scientists Russ and Cristina Mittermeier and Norman Myers as well as photographer Patricio Robles Gil. In this oversized volume, these four scholars have assembled more than three hundred vivid photographs of some of the world's endangered species and threatened ecosystems. These absolutely breath-taking images come from the what they refer to as "the 25 most critically important regions" in the world. These regions originally constituted almost 12 percent of the world's land surface but now, due to human pressure at many levels, only a little more than 1 percent remains intact. What makes these locations, which are found on all continents except Antarctica, so "hot" is that they are home to hordes of the Earth's plants and animals and they face imminent danger from a variety of human activities. The Hotshot authors and others strongly believe that the global community can do wonders if these areas move to the top of our priority list. But what will have to happen for these spots to be protected? There are no simple answers to this central question. Unfortunately, those of us in the United States who have the luxury of time to even ponder such questions, face many obvious difficulties. First, nearly all of the hotspots are located outside of our territorial boundaries, exceptions being the forests of Oregon and California as well as portions of Southern Florida (namely the Keys and the Everglades). Key hotspots are found in New Zealand, Madagascar, and Indonesia as well as the continental parts of south-east Asia. Obviously we cannot expect that we will be able to force other countries to enact and enforce laws that will greatly reduce biological degradation. Yet, while many other countries have ratified the Biodiversity Treaty that was drafted at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, it has never reached the floors of the . Congress for a vote; Canada, Japan, and the European Union are among those to ratify it. By this inaction our nation apparently lacks the wherewithal to support global conservation efforts as a matter of principle. However, given that the wealthy nations in concert with international banks promote unsustainable extraction of resources in the world's developing countries, it would appear that we have an obligation to do so. If our national policy makers are unwilling to commit themselves to the protection of global ecosystems and species, we still have ourselves to look to for sources of positive change. All of us have tremendous purchasing power, especially in comparison to the majority of the other human residents on this planet; Barry Bearak, a Pulitzer Prize-winner journalist who recently spoke at Knox College's convocation, referred to the residents of the United States as "filthy rich," a conclusion he came to after spending a great deal of time in the poorer regions of the world, particularly Afghanistan and India. What we buy makes a difference. The environmental campaign to support shade coffee rather than sun coffee is just one of many attempts for the consumer to support sustainable practices in regions of great ecological diversity. According to the Northwest Shad Coffee Campaign, shade coffee agricultural allows for the extraction of a desired resource but at the same time allows between 3-8 times as many birds species to persist not to mention many more mid-size mammals as well as amphibians and beetles. Coffee is also a particularly important commodity in terms of the health of ecological systems because the countries that produce the bulk of it are precisely the same countries that are home to the majority of the world's species; the countries of Brazil, Bolivia, Indonesia, Vietnam collectively produce ~40 percent of the 17 billion pounds of coffee that are harvested each year (folks, that's more than 3 pounds per person!). Burdensome debts also force many developing countries to endlessly delay infrastructure investment. Debt-for-nature swaps, an idea proposed by Dr. Thomas Lovejoy of the World Wildlife Federation in the mid-1980s, have enabled poor countries to relieve foreign debt and international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to increase commitment to conservation programs both at the same time. In these swaps, NGOs pay off a poor country's debt to a bank or well-to-do country at greatly reduced costs in order to establish agreements for investment in national parks, for example. While not a cure-all, these efforts have begun the paradigm shift from unabated expansion and unhealthy extraction to one supportive of saving natural ecosystems and securing the health and welfare of all human populations. Threats to these locations represent massive scale intrusions taken by societies found on every continent. Unfortunately, there is so much that will be lost if these "special" places aren't quickly protected from future degradation. On the bright side though, so much of the world's genetic diversity lives in just a couple handfuls of "hotspots" that if these locations were saved hordes of species would be able to persist into the next millennium. The time is now to respond to this fairly recent observation and insight. It is time for the world to begin to act like a civilized 21st Century society. It is incumbent upon us, those with time and wealth, to maintain the momentum that others have started. The masses of life forms are relying on us to make the best attempt at this daunting yet critical task. Hopefully our species will be sensible enough to leave at least 1 percent of land alone, so that other life forms may continue to exist. Do we need all 100 percent? 写不下了，如果觉得不够，邮箱可否留一下，我继续补充