思想教育英文期刊怎么写论文

找了两篇文章.供你参考. in EducationMore than ever, opportunities should be afforded to families that wish to bring their children up with a moral education in accordance with their beliefs. A system of choice allows parents to choose schools that inject moral or religious themes into their children’s education. Further Reading:“Faith Part of the Problem or Part of the Solution?” by Marvin Olasky “Can Public Schools Teach Character?” by Dr. Perry Glanzer “Leading Children Beyond Good & Evil” by Dr. James Davison Hunter An Education for a Good Life by Clark Durant FEATURED ARTICLE:“The Myth of a Value-Free Education”by Dr. Ronald NashAmericans love myths. By "myth," I do not mean the old-fashioned myths that my generation read in grade school. Many Americans would find reading at that fifth-grade level too difficult these days. What I mean by "myth" is what older generations used to call a fiction. One of the more influential myths presently affecting the American family is the myth of a value-free education. A value-free education is described as one in which students are supposed to be free from any coerced exposure to the values of anyone. One way the defenders of value-free education frame their argument is this: they argue that because America ceased to be a homogeneous society a long time ago, the watchword today must be pluralism. In the new setting of today, they insist, we can no longer stress the values and beliefs of some, while ignoring the values of all. And so, they say, we’ll avoid all the problems inherent in this situation by simply agreeing to ignore all values. This specious argument deceives Americans into thinking this is the only way to achieve fairness in our schools. College students today are surrounded by an allegedly academic setting in which the things they find most obvious are confusion, conflicting claims and the absence of any fixed points of reference. America’s colleges have become centers of intellectual disorder. As David Gress explains, "Instead of being havens of independent thought, universities have become channels of indoctrination…confirming the prejudices of those who control the agenda of public discourse." Ralph Bennett is surely right when he warns that "behind its ivy-colored camouflage, American higher education is a fraud—untrue to its students, untrue to itself." The inadequacies of contemporary education are not exclusively matters of the mind. Traditional religious and moral values are under assault at every level of public and higher education. Our educational system is engaged in a systematic undermining of these values. Our educational crisis is to some extent a closing of the American mind, as Allan Bloom examined in his best selling book of that title. But it is also something more profound, a closing of the American heart. No real progress towards improving American education can occur until all of us realize that an education that ignores moral and religious beliefs cannot qualify as a quality education. Recently, no less a person than Mikhail Gorbachev admitted that the major reason his nation is in such trouble is because his people are ignorant of moral and spiritual values. The development of the intellect and of moral character are intimately related. Just as there is an order in nature (the laws of science), in reason (the laws of logic), and in the realm of numbers, so too is there a moral order. One thing we need to do is recover the belief that there is a transcendent, unchanging moral order, and restore it once more to a central place in the educational process. Throughout history, important thinkers have contended that there is a higher order of permanent things (like moral norms), that human happiness is dependent on living our lives in accordance with this transcendent order, and that peace and order within human society require respect for this order. The most important task of education is to continually remind students of the existence and importance of this transcendent order as well as of its content. If teachers are doing their job properly, they serve as an essential link in the chain of civilization. Without this link, the chain cannot hold. Teachers are the conservers of culture; they are also its transmitters. At least, that’s the role that teachers used to play. Modern education in America has largely separated virtue and knowledge. The Sophists of our age have severed the link between reason and virtue, between the mind and the heart; there is objective truth out there, which it is our duty to pursue and discover. But there is also an objective moral order out there, as well as in here. An adequate education dare not ignore either the mind or the heart. Just as we dare not divorce education from matters of the heart, so too we must not separate education from religion. Like any important human activity, education has an inescapable religious component. Religious faith is not just one isolated compartment of a person’s life—a compartment that we can take or leave as we wish. Religious faith is rather a dimension of life that colors, affects and influences everything we do and believe. Human beings are incurably religious, as John Calvin once said. Paul Tillich was right when he defined religion as a matter of "ultimate concern." Every person has something that concerns him ultimately and whatever that may be, the ultimate concern will have an enormous influence on everything else the person does or believes. Since every human being has something about which he is ultimately concerned, it follows that every human being has a God. No human being can possibly be neutral when it comes to religion. When an individual encounters people who claim that education should be free of any religious content, he should recognize that this is not a religiously neutral claim. Rather it is an assertion that reflects the religious commitments of the person making it. There is a sense in which education is an activity that is religious at its roots. Any effort to remove religion from education is merely the substitution of one set of ultimate religious commitments for another. It is absurd then to think that a choice between the sacred and secular in education is possible. Whatever the state and the courts do regarding education will only establish one person’s set of ultimate (religious) concerns at the expense of someone else’s. Nothing will remedy the problems of American education more quickly and more effectively than the introduction of greater freedom and choice in education. We should seek a permanent end to the situation that allows the state to determine where children must attend school, if that child is to receive a free public education. American families should have complete freedom to send their children to any school they wish, without the added financial burden of paying private school tuition. One way to realize this objective is through educational vouchers. Following the institution of a voucher system, public monies for education would not pass directly to schools. Rather, that money would be given first to the families of school-age children in the form of vouchers. Parents would then use those vouchers to pay for their children’s education at a school of their own choosing. Perhaps the major reason why public schools are so bad is because they have no competition; they are immune to market-discipline. Consequently, public schools have no incentive to offer a better product at a lower cost. A pro-choice movement in education would give public schools serious competition for the first time in more than a century. (Notice the implication here: many Americans are unaware of the fact that for generations, America’s public schools did not enjoy a monopoly with regard to public financial support.) It is not enough that we simply increase choice among public schools. The governmental monopoly over publicly funded education is a large part of our problem. It is imperative that educational choice be expanded to include the option of attending without financial penalty, without the burden of double taxation, any school that any family wishes, including church-operated private schools. The best and quickest way to improve the quality of education is to allow families to choose their school and let the competition of the market determine which schools prosper and which schools die. In the process, families will be able to select schools, not only on the basis of academic quality, but also with a view to the moral and spiritual values fostered by the school. Dr. Ronald Nash is Professor of Theology and Philosophy at Reformed Theological Seminary Exchange Quarterly Spring 2004 Volume 8, Issue 1Moral Values for Public EducationDaniel C. Elliott, . Azusa Pacific UniversityABSTRACTThe continuing degeneration of personal virtue among the world's societies seems to be emerging as the single-most urgent issue of our time. Until recent years, public schools had long since deferred from their original roles in morality and character education, though many outside of the school systems continued political pressure to move schools either toward or away from a values-oriented curriculum. This author analyses this history and poses questions and ideas about the appropriate teaching of the difference between right and wrong in American continuing degeneration of personal virtue among the world's societies seems to be emerging as the single-most urgent issue of our time. The 1970’s brought a revisitation of ‘values” but under a personalistic approach called “Values Clarification.” Values were to be presented in a neutral way to students who were to clarify and select their choices. There were no incorrect choices, except those for which the individual failed to formulate a supporting rationale. The 1980’s and 90’s saw a rapidly intensifying pluralistic view of American society. When the question of values came up, people asked, “Whose values should we teach?” Many in North American society believe in a core set of virtues found most commonly in a Christian worldview or a Judeo-Christian philosophy, even many who would not characterize themselves as particularly “religious.” Yet the personalistic approach to identification of “virtue“ failed to bring about a more moral society but has, instead, resulted in moral decline. Public schools had long since deferred from their original roles in morality and character education and even many churches or religious organizations were not picking up the slack (Meade, 1990A Major Study on the Morals and Ethics of ChildrenIn March 1990, Robert Coles, a child psychiatrist and Harvard professor, one who called himself “a member of the liberal intellectual left”, was quoted as wistfully recalling “the good old days when religion was taught in the schools” (Meade, 1990). Coles sensed a void--something missing from American homes and schools-- missing for years. Coles directed a major research project. The missing element was, they concluded, a strong, unarguable notion of right and wrong, good and ’ findings revealed a nation of children who have a complicated belief system that usually runs counter to traditional values. “There was an unmistakable erosion of children’s faith in, and support for, traditional sources of authority.” More than parents, teachers or authoritative officials, children turned to peers for guidance on matters of right and wrong. Coles described conversations with many kids whose consciences he said were “not all that muscular.” (Meade, 1990)The New Character EducationA new ground swell is observed forming in the 1990’s seeking to restore ethics, morality, and virtue to a central focus in public schooling. More than 30 educational leaders from state school boards, teachers' unions, universities, ethics centers, youth organizations, and religious groups met in 1992 at the Josephson Institute of Ethics. They formulated eight principles for character education— The Aspen Declaration on Character Education. (Lickona, 1993). In March of 1993, a national coalition for character development formed with representatives from business, government, and education, as well as churches. They began to formulate an agenda for reinstituting morality in public school curriculum and instruction. (Haynes 1994)Four Reasons for Character EducationYoung people increasingly hurt themselves and others because they lack awareness of moral values. Effective character education improves student behavior, makes schools more civil communities, and leads to improved academic performance. Many students come to school with little moral teaching from their parents, communities or religious institutions. We know today that the inclusion of character development emphases within the curriculum of our schools will do the . Add Meaning to Education Moral questions are among the great questions facing the individual person and the human race. There is no such thing as a value-free education. Schools teach values every day by design or default. 2. Sustain and Strengthen our Culture Transmitting moral values to the next generation has always been one of the more important functions of a civilization. Democracies have a special need for moral education, because democracy is government of and by the people . Model Civility There is broad based and growing support for character education in the schools. Common ground exists on core moral values although there may be significant disagreement on the applicationof some of these values to certain controversial issues (Nyland and MacDonald, 1997). The Boyer Institute has been actively promoting research that reveals North American core values (or “common virtu,” also referred to as “common decency.” Honesty, responsibility, self-discipline, giving, compassion, perseverance, and loving are virtue terms most often cited. However, in application, “honesty” can be applied differently according to other elements of the actor’s worldview or philosophy. Compassion and/or responsibility might look different among the sub-groups citing these . Build True CharacterThus, a person of true character, according to experts, is trustworthy, treats all people with respect, acts responsibly, maintains self-control, is fair and just, is caring, pursues excellence, and is an all around desirable State Education Code Basis for Teaching Fundamental Moral ValuesThough often humorously critiqued as a state that is less than ‘virtuous’ in its social ethic, nevertheless, California, as a state, has raised the bar for public schools and virtue-based curriculum for several decades. Ever since the 1970s the California legislature has aggressively addressed the question of values and virtue in the curriculum, though this often went unnoticed or unheralded by the media or even the schools themselves. Currently, California Ed. Code 44806 tells us that it is the duty of teachers to “impress upon the minds of pupils the principles of morality, truth, justice, patriotism, and a true comprehension of rights, duties, and dignity of American citizenship...” The code further directs us to teach students to . . .avoid idleness, profanity, and falsehood, and to instruct them in the manners and morals and the principles of a free government. Each teacher shall endeavor to impress upon the minds of the pupils the principles of morality, truth, justice, patriotism, a true comprehension of the rights, duties and dignity of American citizenship, including: kindness toward domestic pets and the humane treatment of living Moral and Civic Education and Teaching About Religion, the Board directs school personnel to teach students about: morality, including respect for differences and the significance of religion; truth; open discussion; justice; patriotism; self-esteem; integrity; empathy, including the “golden rule” (The Christian Bible, Matthew 7:12); exemplary conduct; moral interaction and ethical reflection; and the capacity to recognize values, including respect for the family, property, reliability, and for law. MoralityThe California Board of Education says, “School personnel must foster in students an understanding of the moral values that form the foundation of American society.” California teachers must teach students that citizens in a free society respect the worth and dignity of others, as well as their freedom of conscience. Religion is to be presented and viewed as primary source for the presence of basic moral principals. While no individual religious system may be prescribed, school faculty must help students recognize the sources of morality in history, law, and experience and must help students appreciate the significant contributions of religion, including the sacredness of human life and belief in freedom of worship. Morality is defined as “responsibility for personal decisions and conduct and the obligation to demonstrate concern about the well-being of others, along with showing respect for living creatures and the physical environment.” TruthCalifornia teachers are required to help students understand truth and the necessity for truth in a free and democratic society. Telling and expecting to be told the truth is an essential element among free and democratic peoples. Imagine a word study on the concept of truth, drawn from the Bible and other texts, obtaining definitions of truth JusticeJustice is defined as “fairness in dealing with others, and is considered a hallmark of American society.” The California Board of Education said that “one owes to oneself and to others the obligation to engage in a constant effort to see that justice is attained.” PatriotismJesus, quoted in Matthew 22:21, (The Christian Bible) instructs people to give to the government that which it was due (give to Caesar that which is Caesar's...) and to reflect similar obedience in relationship to God. Loyalty to one’s government is taught throughout Judeo Christian thought and scriptures, being only excepted by loyalty to God. In the case of our nation, we pledge to it as “one nation under God”. Such a concept bears full discussion in our classrooms, though such discussions must be sensitive and appropriate for the age and maturation levels of the students involved. Self-esteemThe California Board of Education says that “Self-esteem and esteem for others are based on the intrinsic worth and dignity of individuals, not on academic ability or physical prowess. Jesus said that we must love others as we love ourselves (Matthew 19:19 ff), that normal human beings do esteem themselves, love themselves, provide for their own basic needs by nature. It is with God’s permission that we do so. This discussion is authorized in California classrooms. IntegrityThe California Board of Education tells us “School personnel should encourage students to live and speak with integrity; that is, to be trustworthy. To foster integrity is to help build character, to assist students to be honest with themselves, to promote a wholeness unimpaired by self-deceit, and to encourage the development of reliability in relations with others.” In view of recent questions about the integrity among business and government leaders, may would suggest that there is a curriculum related rationale for teachers

通过整理,在写英语论文过程中,主要注意的有以下几点: 第一.对于初写英语论文的人来讲.最好不要对原中文论文进行直译. 在谈到这个观点时,唐教授一再强调初写英语论文一定要"抄",也就是说搜集一些类似的国外高级刊物的英语论文,在这些论文中找到要表达相似意思的英文句子,使用它的句型.这样写出来的论文更适合外国人的思维方式.也能让外国人更容易理解.同时也更容易被SCI,EI检索. 他还说,按这种方式写过5篇论文左右,一些地道的英语表达方式就可以熟练的记住了. 第二.在写英语论文之前,首先要确定你要投什么样的期刊.其实投中文期刊论文也是这样的.举个很简单的例子,前几天,我有一个同学,写了一篇用数学问题解决纺织工程问题的论文.导师指导他说:"如果你想投到<>,在写论文时,在内容上就应该对一些数学知识作详细的说明,而纺织知识可以作粗略的介绍,但如果你想投到<>期刊,那就应该对纺织的一些基础知识作详细的说明!".因此,投不同类型的期刊有不同的写作手法.这样可以提高论文的录用率. 第三.要想写出被SCI/EI检索的文章一定要多花功夫在标题和摘要上.这也许是大家都知道的.外国人更注重创新,只要你觉得自己的观点有创新点,就不要怕不会被外文收录.还有一句话我还记忆忧新:"做很少人做的研究领域,做难的研究领域".这样的文章很容易被录用. 第四.中国有句古话:"熟读唐诗三百首 不会作诗也会吟."在写英语论文之前,做大量的阅读是必要的.但最好应该去读那些英语是母语国家学者写的论文.但是,必须注意的是.无论是硕士还是博士,永远应该把专业放在第一位,英语是放在第二位.英语只是一种工具.只是一种帮助你科研的工具. 第五.写英语论文时,不要使用外国人没有使用过的句型.即使这样的句子在语法上没有问题.但是外国人就是看不懂.也就相当于是一个病句.也许这种"病句"对你考CET有用,其实学英语口语也是这样的.在练英语口语时,希望朋友们记住:"讲外国人从来没说过的英语,即使语法没有问题,也是错的."我国著名语言学家说过:"想学好一门外语,首先要学好其文化!"

一篇较长的英语论文(如英语毕业论文)一般都需要标题页,其书写格式如下:第一行标题与打印纸顶端的距离约为打印纸全长的三分之一,与下行(通常为by,居中)的距离则为5cm,第三、第四行分别为作者姓名及日期(均居中)。

如果该篇英语论文是学生针对某门课程而写,则在作者姓名与日期之间还需分别打上教师学衔及其姓名(如:Dr./)及本门课程的编号或名称(如:English 734或British Novel)。打印时,如无特殊要求,每一行均需double space,即隔行打印,行距约为(论文其他部分行距同此)。

二、提纲

英语论文提纲页包括论题句及提纲本身,其规范格式如下:先在第一行(与打印纸顶端的距离仍为左右)的始端打上 Thesis 一词及冒号,空一格后再打论题句,回行时左边须与论题句的第一个字母上下对齐。

主要纲目以大写罗马数字标出,次要纲目则依次用大写英文字母、阿拉伯数字和小写英文字母标出。各数字或字母后均为一句点,空出一格后再打该项内容的第一个字母；处于同一等级的纲目,其上下行左边必须对齐。

需要注意的是,同等重要的纲目必须是两个以上,即:有Ⅰ应有Ⅱ,有A应有B,以此类推。如果英文论文提纲较长,需两页纸,则第二页须在右上角用小写罗马数字标出页码,即ii(第一页无需标页码)。

三、摘要

1、英文摘要是应用符合英文语法的文字语言，提供论文内容梗概为目的的短文。（内容基本与中文摘要相同，但不用完全逐句对应）。

2、英文题目、摘要、关键词自成一页（1页即可），放在中文摘要页之后。

3、英文字体与行间距： 统一使用“西文字体”中的“Times New Roman”，倍行间距。

4、英文题目： 使用三号字加粗。

5、英文摘要： “Absract”顶格，使用四号字，并加粗。

英文摘要具体内容使用四号字。

6、英文关键词： “Key Words”顶格，使用四号字并加粗。

四、正文

有标题页和提纲页的英语论文,其正文第一页的规范格式为:论文标题居中,其位置距打印纸顶端约5cm,距正文第一行约。段首字母须缩进五格,即从第六格打起。

正文第一页不必标页码(但应计算其页数),自第二页起,必须在每页的右上角(即空出第一行,在其后部)打上论文作者的姓,空一格后再用阿拉伯数字标出页码；阿拉伯数字(或其最后一位)应为该行的最后一个空格。

在打印正文时尚需注意标点符号的打印格式,即:句末号(句号、问号及感叹号)后应空两格,其他标点符号后则空一格。

五、文中引述

正确引用作品原文或专家、学者的论述是写好英语论文的重要环节；既要注意引述与论文的有机统一,即其逻辑性,又要注意引述格式 （即英语论文参考文献）的规范性。

引述别人的观点,可以直接引用,也可以间接引用。无论采用何种方式,论文作者必须注明所引文字的作者和出处。美国学术界通行的做法是在引文后以圆括弧形式注明引文作者及出处。

六、文献目录

论文作者在正文之后必须提供论文中全部引文的详细出版情况,即文献目录页。美国高校一般称此页为 Works Cited, 其格式须注意下列几点:

目录页应与正文分开,另页打印,置于正文之后。

目录页应视为英语论文的一页,按论文页码的顺序在其右上角标明论文作者的姓和页码；如果条目较多,不止一页,则第一页不必标出作者姓和页码(但必须计算页数),其余各页仍按顺序标明作者姓和页码。

标题Works Cited与打印纸顶端的距离约为,与第一条目中第一行的距离仍为；各条目之间及各行之间的距离亦为,不必留出更多空白。

各条目内容顺序分别为作者姓、名、作品名、出版社名称、出版地、出版年份及起止页码等；各条目应严格按各作者姓的首字母顺序排列,但不要给各条目编码,也不必将书条与杂志、期刊等条目分列。各条目第一行需顶格打印,回行时均需缩进五格,以将该条目与其他条目区分开来。

英语论文摘要又称文摘，是论文的重要组成部分，它是以提供文献内容梗概为目的，不加评论和补充解释，简明、确切地记述文献重要内容的短文。摘要应具有独立性和自明性，并拥有与文献同等量的主要信息，即不需阅读全文，就可获得重要的信息。

摘要通常置于文题之后，文章之首。在论文发表后，论文摘要常被文献检索系统所收集。英语论文摘要一般为200-300单词，并有与英文摘要表达观点一致的中文摘要与之对应。

扩展资料：

发表论文作用：

论文是指进行各个学术领域的研究和描述学术研究成果的文章。它既是探讨问题进行学术研究的一种手段，又是描述学术研究成果进行学术交流的一种工具。不同的人发表论文的作用也不同：

1、评职称（晋升职称）：研究生 毕业需要；教师 、医护人员 、科研院所的人员、企业员工 等 晋升高一级的职称时，发表期刊论文是作为一项必须的参考指标。

2、申报基金、课题 ：教育、科技、卫生系统 每年申报的国家自然科学基金项目、其它各种基金项目、各种研究课题时，发表论文 是作为 基金或课题 完成的一种研究成果的结论性展示。

3、世界性基础领域的研究，比如在医学、数学、物理、化学、生命科学 等领域开展的基础性研究，公开发表论文 是对最新科技 科学研究成果、研究方法的一种展示和报道。以推动整个社会的科技进步等。