Embed Size (px)
Transcript of Œ¼¹»‚ ‘³³»¹®‚...
; ; ; ... . ( ) . . .3966/2011 ( 45, ) [...] . , . , , , , .., , . ... [...] [...]
: Holliday, A. (1994). Appropriate Methodology and Social Context. Cambridge: CUP, p. 105
But this experience did leave me with a lingering question that has survived in my research interests. Why is it that certain methods prove successful in a certain contexts, and fail so completely in other ones? Adrian Hollidays small culture theory did provide me with the beginnings of an answer: citing the learning group ideal as an example, he claimed that methodological choices that are supported in a particular educational context may prove disruptive in others, and coined the term tissue rejection to describe the phenomenon. This insight had a profound impact on English Language Teaching and paved the way towards eclectic pedagogy, but it fell short of explaining my questions: Why exactly are particular innovations disruptive in certain contexts and not in others? What are the properties of the context, and how do these relate to methodological innovation?
8 ( 1) :
; ; Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology : combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, Calif. [...]: SAGE Publications.Wallace, M. J. (1998). Action research for language teachers. Cambridge [..]: Cambridge University Press.Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: design and methods (3 .). Thousand Oaks, Calif. [...]: SAGE Publications. (, , )
987071,4%43,5%9191100%56,5%18916185,2%100% ; ... 1 . ; 2 .
[...] . 3 ().
, , ,, , (.. ) !;firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com