2010年3月29日 星期一

operational definition

hc 評: 可運作/操作/作業定義(operational definition)不教的話
就無法有確實的內容 換句話說 作文在字彙功夫之外


.......本書是「臺灣大學寫作教學中心」的寫作教學系列書,是為臺灣大學寫作教學中心「英文論文寫作」課程而編撰,寫作教學中心針對研究生開設多門中英文學術寫作課程。
  
  對於許多國內英語學習者而言,英文作文一向是件難事。當大家邁入高等教育的殿堂,要將研究成果發表,撰寫學術論文時,往往不知如何下筆。不同於報紙或是聯考作文的文體,學術英文的結構嚴謹,並有一定的脈絡可循,用字更是精準簡潔。雖然不同的學術領域,皆有各自的寫作格式與慣例,但除卻專業用字以外,所有領域常用的學術字彙,大致相同。這些學術字彙也是英語學習者,在面對學術論文寫作時,最好掌握的一部分。
  
  學習者在學習字彙的過程中,常會忽略了字彙的搭配詞與片語的重要性,造成中式英文或是詞不達意的情形。有鑒於此,本書根據Averil Coxhead (2000)所發表的學術字彙表(Academic Word List),將學術英文最常用的570個字彙家族(word family),加上學術寫作常用之搭配詞與片語,整理編撰而成。本書期盼讀者能透過字彙與搭配詞的學習,克服學術寫作障礙;透過學術字彙與搭配詞的活用,跨出論文寫作的第一步。
  
  本書除了針對常見的學術字彙,選錄學術寫作上常使用到的字義,並提供學術例句外,最大的特色是依照學術寫作的使用習慣,收錄這些字彙常見的搭配詞、片語與介係詞。搭配詞與片語皆為經常一起出現的字串,雖然學界對於搭配詞與片語的區別尚無共識,但兩者大致的區別如下:搭配詞為常見且較有彈性的字詞組合,在使用上有較多的自由與變化;片語則是固定的字詞組合,不可隨意變換。
  
以definition為例:
當我們要表示「下定義」這個意思, definition可搭配的動詞包括formulate,give,provide或write。我們可說provide clear definitions或是give a brief definition。與definition搭配的動詞,或形容詞,可彈性替換。但是by definition則為片語,by加上definition是固定的用法,不能任意變換成by definitions,或是by clear definitions。.......

2010年3月17日 星期三

莱比锡“德国文学研究院”

文学艺术 | 2010.03.17

莱比锡“德国文学研究院”:未来作家的摇篮

设在莱比锡的"德国文学研究院"是德国唯一一个专门培养有写作天份的年轻人成为杰出作家的教育设施。早在柏林墙倒塌前,文笔出色的年轻人就可以在这里接受 特别的专业教育。它每年招收大约20名学生,在此进行为期3 年的进修学习。德国文学研究院设在一幢别墅中,是个具有家庭氛围的学习场所,目前约有50名未来作家受教于此。

"我跟我的医生一起抽了只烟。医生住在楼上,他经常不带火。当香烟点燃了以后,他就往后靠着椅背替我诊断......................"

去年早春,于格尔·德格(Jörn Dege)以这篇文章考取了德国文学研究院。当时他刚完成大学里的数学和哲学专业,紧接着他就把自己写的这篇20页作品寄给文学研究院作为应征材料。每年 前来报考文学研究院的年轻人平均约600人,但只有20个录取名额,德格就是去年的幸运者之一。他说:"我之前没有发表过作品,也从来没有公开朗读的经 验,只是想到就写,刚好就成了我的应征作品。"

这位28岁的研究生几乎每天都去听叙述理论、文学史或有关创作的一般实用技巧的讲座。

德格了然于心的是, 他将步前人后尘,踏上文学创作的道路,就像文学研究院干事长克劳迪尤斯·尼森(Claudius Niessen)当年那样。尼森是他的学长,现在已成为研究院的干事长。

文学院的学生正朗诵着文学作品Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: 文学院的学生正朗诵着文学作品

克劳迪尤斯·尼森在当今的德国文学界小有名气,除了任职文学院干事长外,也是一名文学经纪人、主持人和出版家。比起闭门写作,他更愿意从事与公众互 动的台前事务。尼森表示:"我曾经在文学研究院学习。入学后的第一堂课,讲师哈斯林格尔(Joseph Hasslinger)就告诉我们,我们的毕业证书将一文不值。他说得其实挺有道理,因为作为艺术创作者,那纸文凭有什么用?你能拿着它到哪儿去找工作? 我们就读研究院的唯一所得就是多得一个经验。人们必须搞清楚,并不是每一个进来学习的人,出了校门就自动成为作家了。"

因此研究院的许多学生还要学习第二个专业,或找一份兼职工作。德格说:"跟我同班的 一位女同学,之前在医院作了15年的急诊室护士,以后她还会继续在那里工作。"

最重要的是个人的坚持。写作是研究院的核心课业,在写作研习班上,各年级同学一同讨论和批评每位同学的作品。德格表示:"我喜欢这种学习方式,每个人都可以提出个人的观点和见解,我们从这种交流中学受益良多。但也有些文章完全不合格。"

不过同学施蒂希曼则持不同看法:"我总觉得文学研究院被过份高估了。我们在课堂上一起讨论某位同学的作品,但谁真正在意别人提出的意见呢?教授就更别说了,他们才不会受学生的影响。"

那么,莱比锡"法博尔与法博尔出版社"老板米歇埃尔·法博尔(Michael Faber)怎么看这件事呢?"事实上在过去几年中,德国文学研究院的确造就了可观的一批杰出作家,从而大幅提高了研究院的声誉。 现在的情况是,著名的出版商及出版社编辑都主动到文学研究院寻觅人才。"

也就是说,就读德国文学研究院的年轻人,只要认真学习,努力写出能触动时代神经的作品,成为知名作家的机会就会大幅提高。

作者:Annegret Farbe/杨家华

责编:乐然

2010年3月2日 星期二

The Calling of Education:"The Academic Ethic" and Other Essays on Higher Education

The Calling of Education:"The Academic Ethic" and Other Essays on Higher Education

教师的道与德
书号:16029 ISBN:978-7-301-16029-9
作者: (美)爱德华·希尔斯 版次:1
开本:大32开 装订:平装
字数: 232 千字 页数:240 定价:¥30.00
出版日期:2010-01-07 丛书名:大学教师通识教育读本


内容简介:
大学是当今社会最主要的学术中心,所致力的是发现和传播真理。在这本平实晓畅的著作里,美国著名社会学家爱德华o希尔斯从大学的这一使命出发,探讨了大学 教师在其研究和教学的职业之"道"中所要恪守的"德":与教学、研究、大学行政管理相关的学术责任,以及与服务社会、政治参与、公共生活等相关的社会责 任。 大学的现代变迁(大学的扩张、大学对社会经费的依赖、政治思潮对大学的冲击、大学管理的官僚化等)对教师的道德风气造成了侵蚀和干扰。希尔斯由此认定,今 天的大学教师在享受大学自治、学术自由、终审教职等正当的权利时更应该怀有对真理的爱,对学术的诚信,对大学的忠诚,对学生、同行、社会和政府的责任。当 大学教师的学术责任与社会责任相互冲突时,后者应该让位于前者。

精彩片段:

章节目录:
大学教师的道与德 如何聘任大学教师 我们还需要学术自由吗? 政府、社会、大学:彼此的权利和义务 当代社会的大学理念 现代大学与自由民主

Edward Shils

2010年3月1日 星期一

The Case Against College Education上大學浪費青春?

上大學浪費青春?

The Case Against College Education

By Ramesh Ponnuru

Politicians say more Americans need a higher education. The opposite is true. Why the connection between college degrees and good jobs is inefficient



Even in these days of partisan rancor, there is a bipartisan consensus on the high value of postsecondary education. That more people should go to college is usually taken as a given. In his State of the Union address last month, President Obama echoed the words of countless high school guidance counselors around the country: "In this economy, a high school diploma no longer guarantees a good job." Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, who gave the Republican response, concurred: "All Americans agree that a young person needs a world-class education to compete in the global economy."

The statistics seem to bear him out. People with college degrees make a lot more than people without them, and that difference has been growing. But does that mean that we should help more kids go to college — or that we should make it easier for people who didn't go to college to make a living? (See the 10 best college presidents.)

We may be close to maxing out on the first strategy. Our high college drop-out rate — 40% of kids who enroll in college don't get a degree within six years — may be a sign that we're trying to push too many people who aren't suited for college to enroll. It has been estimated that, in 2007, most people in their 20s who had college degrees were not in jobs that required them: another sign that we are pushing kids into college who will not get much out of it but debt. (Comment on this story.)

The benefits of putting more people in college are also oversold. Part of the college wage premium is an illusion. People who go to college are, on average, smarter than people who don't. In an economy that increasingly rewards intelligence, you'd expect college grads to pull ahead of the pack even if their diplomas signified nothing but their smarts. College must make many students more productive workers. But at least some of the apparent value of a college degree, and maybe a lot of it, reflects the fact that employers can use it as a rough measure of job applicants' intelligence and willingness to work hard.

We could probably increase the number of high school seniors who are ready to go to college — and likely to make it to graduation — if we made the K-12 system more academically rigorous. But let's face it: college isn't for everyone, especially if it takes the form of four years of going to classes on a campus. (See pictures of the college dorm's evolution.)

To talk about college this way may sound élitist. It may even sound philistine, since the purpose of a liberal-arts education is to produce well-rounded citizens rather than productive workers. But perhaps it is more foolishly élitist to think that going to school until age 22 is necessary to being well-rounded, or to tell millions of kids that their future depends on performing a task that only a minority of them can actually accomplish.

The good news is that there have never been more alternatives to the traditional college. Some of these will no doubt be discussed by a panel of education experts on Feb. 26 at the National Press Club, a debate that will be aired on PBS. Online learning is more flexible and affordable than the brick-and-mortar model of higher education. Certification tests could be developed so that in many occupations employers could get more useful knowledge about a job applicant than whether he has a degree. Career and technical education could be expanded at a fraction of the cost of college subsidies. Occupational licensure rules could be relaxed to create opportunities for people without formal education.

It is absurd that people have to get college degrees to be considered for good jobs in hotel management or accounting — or journalism. It is inefficient, both because it wastes a lot of money and because it locks people who would have done good work out of some jobs. The tight connection between college degrees and economic success may be a nearly unquestioned part of our social order. Future generations may look back and shudder at the cruelty of it.