全文小结：
- 1、[汉译英]寻高手翻译一段物理论文摘要。拜谢！
- 2、professional competence是什么意思
- 3、CLT---communicative language Teaching交际语言教学
- 4、competence-grammar和performance-grammar的具体含义与区分
- 5、帮我找些关于competence and performance的资料
- 6、素质教育用英语怎么说
[汉译英]寻高手翻译一段物理论文摘要。拜谢！
Abstract
High School Physics is one of the fundamental science courses in high schools. Being an integral part of the physics or science curriculum of the Nine Year Compulsory Education Program, it aims at enhancing the science capacities of high school students. As a result of the recent curricular reformation, main concern of the general public has shifted from enrolment-related and examination-oriented schooling to the effective provision of quality education. As homework reduction and interest-motivated learning have become the main trend in our education system, those teaching practices that emphaize on drilling for rapid enhancement in the knowledge or skill level of students have been put into a dilemma. Any increase in the amount or difficulty level of the drills will increase the "work-load" of students and are in contradiction with the goal of homework reduction, while a decrease in them will render that kind of teaching ineffective in coping with the existing examination-oriented enrolment selection mechanism. Moreover, the current practices of drilling-oriented teaching remain unanimously to be lessons on the question-answering skills of specific examinations. Their emphasis is on the amount of drilling exercises rather than the quality and effect of teaching, thereby making drilling to be the end rather than the means to an end.
In this form of "drilling-oriented teaching", teachers focus mainly on calssifying and typifying all questions anticipated to be found in speific examinations and the skills in answering each type of them. Some of the teachers may even give procedural instructions to their students and ask them to practise such procedural skills on similar or mock questions. The rationale behind such skills, as well as the physical theories and thoughts involved in those questions and answers are, however, totally skipped. Omitted together with them are the emotion, attitude and value development of the students, on which quality-oriented teaching approaches place so much emphasis. However, how much and how difficult drilling exercises should be in order to be considered "appropriate" remains and unanswered question. Hence, one of the imminent problems to be solved is: how "drilling-oriented teaching" can be effectively practised in the context of the newly reformed curricula?
The functions of drilling exercises inculde consolidation and review, knowledge reconstruction, skill enhancement, new knowledge incorporation, learning result verification, and knowledge domain expansion. Activities involved in these exercises usually include example discussion, class room exercises, experiments and operation practices. These activities can help students better understand the concepts and laws of physics, as well as enhancing their ability to apply such knowledge to analyse and solve problems, which in turn is an important aspect of their ability to put theories into practical use.
As a result of the recent reforms in curricula and examinations, exercises in physics have become more related to technology, social development, daily life experiences, as well as other science subjects like chemistry and biology. More emphasis has also been placed on the development of the reasoning and innovation capabilities of the students. Furthermore, the recent curricular reformation has explicitly stated its objectives to be comprehensively enhance the scientific competence of high school students, with an emphasis on the transformation of teaching methods and learning patterns. In view of the above, the objectives of this thesis include: (i) to analyze the various types of exercises in high school physics and the related teaching methods in the context of the new curricular reformation; and (ii) explore the effective exercise patterns for high school physics, taking into account of the characteristics of physics as a high school subject and making use of pedagogical and psychological principles and theories.
professional competence是什么意思
professional competence
专业能力
双语对照
词典结果：
professional competence
[英][prəˈfeʃ哪数ənəl ˈkɔmpitəns][美][prəˈfɛʃənəl ˈkɑmpɪtəns]
专业才能;
以上结果来自金山词霸
例句:
1.
In indian politics and public administration, personal loyalty and the appeasement ofspecial interests take precedence over professional competence and the public good.
在印度的政治和公共管理中，个人忠诚和迎合特殊利益集做神团优先于专业能力和纯缓亏公共利益。
-----------------------------------
如有疑问欢迎追问！
满意请点击右上方【选为满意回答】按钮
CLT---communicative language Teaching交际语言教学
这是一堂理论课，首先用scaffolding （搭手架）的方式，来给大家介绍一些terminology术语：
第一层是方式 【approach】，燃雀例如CLT--Communicative Language Teaching; CCA---cognitive approach;AOA---aural-oral approach;lexical approach
定义为：Approach---Theory of language and how languages are learnt
第二层是每一种方式下延展的 方法【method】，例如CLT教学中 常用方法是TBL ---task based learning。还有常见的方法为 PPP---present，practice，produce； TTT--- test， teach， test； OHE---observe， hypothesize, experiment
定义为：Method---A set of procedures for teaching and learning. An overall scheme for delivering and presenting.
第三层是每一种方法中的具体步骤【procedures/stages】,例如 pre-reading, while-reading, post-reading 等等。
定义为：Procedure---A set of techniques used in a particular order to achieve a certain lesson aim.
第四层是每个步骤里应用的教学技巧和活动【techniques/activities】,例如brainstorming, controlled practice 等等。
定义为：What the teacher actually does in the classroom
Teachers select techniques from various approches according to the different needs of their learners. Most coursebooks mix methods and techniques in this way.教师根据学生的具体需要，从理论出发，选择不同的方式方法来教授学生。大多斗歼数教科书融合了各种方法与技巧。那么要想把教学比喻成看病的过程，就要掌握类似本草纲目的一系列理论支撑。
今天我们重点介绍的是CLT--Communicative Language Learning ，这是二语习得方面最流行也最使用的一种学习方式，也是我们常说的，学会一种语言是为了与人沟通，那么了解一些概念，可以帮助我们在课堂教学的设计中有纲可循。
从理论层面上我们可以把communicative分成两种含义
第一是概念【notions】: 包括time, sequence, quantity, location
第二是功能【fuctions】: 包括 requests, denails, offers, compaints
值得一提的是，英语教学在国外也有大纲，syllabus，Theresa 给我们介绍了现在英国主要使用的三种大纲
•Functional/notional (developed by Council of Europe)---List of situations
•‘The Threshold Level of English’---(Alexander 1980)
•‘Communicative Syllabus’---(Yaldon1983)
长春市英语大纲最后附录了很多话题，而 1998年 Van EK 和 Trim编写的英语入门级大纲，可能也会给我们很多启示。
从上面皮销早的目录中可以看出交际能力应该涵盖多个角度。
Canale 在1983 年提出，交际能力communicative competence 包括四方面：
grammatical competence, socioculture competence, discourse competence, strategic competence
1.grammatival competence---producing a strutured comprehensible utterance
语法能力---能够输出结构完整，易于理解的语句。
2.sociocultural competence---knowing how to respond and use language appropriately dependent on social situations , the topic and the relationships between the people communicating .
社会文化能力---能够根据交流对象的社会情景，话题和人物关系使用恰当的语言进行回应与沟通。也就是知道和什么人在什么时候该说什么和怎么说。
3.discourse competence ---shaping language (from the sentence level up to the text ) and communicating purposefully in different genres (text types ) using cohesion and coherence
语篇能力---在不同文章的体裁中，通过衔接与连贯将句子形成语篇
4.strategic competence ---enhancing the effectiveness of communication ,compensating for breakdowns in communication (working around 'gaps 'in knowledge .
策略能力---指在交际过程中的应变能力，为了加强交际效果或弥补由于缺乏交际能力等因素引起的交际中断所使用的策略。
使用CLT 教学三大原则
The communication principle ---activities that involve real communication promote learning
交际原则---创设包括真实交流的情景以促进语言习得
Task Principle---activities in which language is used for carrying meaningful tasks promote learning
任务原则---创设真实有效的任务推动学生通过使用语言来促进学习
Meaningfulness Principle ---language that is meaningful to the learner supports the learning process .
意义原则---对学生来说有意义的语言才能有效支撑学习过程
最后，大家可以看一下下面的实例，来探讨交际语言教学。
competence-grammar和performance-grammar的具体含义与区分
competence grammar 的话指的是一个speaker的整个运用语法的能力，比如他/她会多少语法规则，对这些规则掌握汪指的如备迟何。
performance grammar指的是一个speaker在说话和书写过程中实际运用的语法，因为仿陵李speaker可能也会在说话和写作过程中出现错误。所以performance指他们具体的运用。
以上
我自己对于这两个概念的解读，可能存在理解上的偏差。
帮我找些关于competence and performance的资料
分类: 教育/科学 历腔尘 外圆隐语学肢禅习
问题描述:
越多越好,谢谢
解析:
A distinction introduced by Chomsky into linguistic theory but of wider application. Competence refers to a speaker's knowledge of his language as manifest in his ability to produce and to understand a theoretically infinite number of sentences most of which he may have never seen or heard before. Performance refers to the specific utterances, including grammatical mistakes and non-linguistic features like hesitations, acpanying the use of language. The distinction parallels Varela's distinction beeen anization and structure. The former refers to the relations and interactions specifically excluding reference to the properties of the refi's ponents, whereas the latter refers to the relations manifest in the concrete realization of such a system in a physical space. Competence like anization describes the potentiality of a system. Performance like structure describes the forms actually realized as a subset of those conceivable.
Summary
The current generation of language processing systems is based on linguistically motivated petence models of natural languages. The problems encountered with these systems suggest the need for performance-models of language processing, which take into account the statistical properties of actual language use. This article describes the overall set-up of such a model. The system I propose employs an annotated corpus; in *** ysing new input it tries to find the most probable way to reconstruct this input from fragments that are already contained in the corpus. This perspective on language processing also has interesting consequences for linguistic theory; some of these are briefly discussed.
1. Introduction.
The starting point for this article was the question: what significance can language technology have for language theory? The usual answer to this question is, that the application of the methods and insights of theoretical linguistics in working puter programs is a good way to test and refine these theoretical ideas. I agree with this answer, and I will emphatically reiterate it here. But most of this article is devoted to a somewhat more speculative train of thought which shows that language-technological considerations can have important theoretical implications.
My considerations focus on a fundamental problem which is faced by current language-processing systems: the problem of ambiguity. To solve the ambiguity problem it is necessary to put linguistic insights about the structure and meaning of language utterances under a mon denominator with statistical data about actual language use. I will sketch a technique which might be able to do this: data-oriented parsing, by means of pattern-matching with an annotated corpus. This parsing technique may be of more than technological interest: it suggests a new and attractive perspective on language and the language faculty.
First a warning. The following discussion concentrates almost exclusively on the problem of syntactic *** ysis. Of course this is only a sub-problem -- both in language theory and in language technology. But this problem turns out to yield so much food for thought already, that it does not seem useful to plicate the discussion by addressing the integration with phoics, phonology, morphology, semantics, pragmatics and discourse-processing. How the different kinds of linguistic knowledge in a language-processing system ought to be distributed over the modules of the algorithm, is a question which will be left out of consideration pletely.
2. Linguistics and language technology.
To be able to turn linguistics into a hard science, Chomsky [1957] assigned a mathematical correlate to the intuitive idea of a "language". He proposed to identify a language with a set of sentences: with the set of grammatically correct utterance forms that are possible in the language. The goal of descriptive linguistics is then to characterise, for individual languages, the set of grammatical sentences explicitly, by means of a formal grammar. And the goal of explanatory linguistic theories should then be, to determine the universal properties which the grammars of all languages share, and to give a psychological account of these universals.
In this view, linguistic theory is not immediately concerned with describing the actual language use in a language munity. Although we may assume that there is a relation beeen the language users' grammaticality intuitions and their actual language behaviour, we must make a sharp distinction beeen these; on the one hand the language system may offer possibilities which are rarely or never used; on the other hand the actual language use involves mistakes and sloppinesses which a linguistic theory should not necessarily account for. In Chomsky's terminology: linguistics is concerned with the linguistic petence rather than the actual performance of the language user. Or, in the words of Saussure, who had emphasized this distinction before: with langue rather than parole.
Chomsky's work has constituted the methodological paradigm for almost all linguistic theory of the last few decades. This prises not only the research tradition that is explicitly aiming at working out Chomsky's syntactic insights. The perspective summarized above has also determined the goals and methods of the most important alternative approaches to syntax, and of the semantic research traditions which have grown out of Richard Montague's work. Now we may ask: how does language technology relate to this language-theoretical paradigm?
Relatively few language technologists invoke Chomsky's ideas explicitly; but their methodological aassumptions tend to be implicitly based on his paradigm. Of course there are also important differences beeen the theoretically oriented and the technologically oriented language research. Compared to theoretical linguistics, language-technological research has usually been more descriptive, and less concerned with the universal validity and the explanatory power of the theory. In developing a translation system or a natural-language database-interface, the descriptive adequacy of the grammar of the input language has obviously a higher priority than gaining insights about syntactic universals. Equally evident is the observation that the syntactic and semantic rules developed for a language-technological application must be articulated in a strictly formal way, whereas the results of theoretical research may often take the form of essayistic reflections on different variations of an informally presented idea.
We thus see a plementary relation beeen theoretical linguistics and language technology; the theory is concerned, often in an informal way, with the general structure of linguistic petence and Universal Grammar; in language technology one tries to specify, in plete formal detail, descriptively adequate grammars of individual languages. Therefore, language-technological work will eventually be of considerable theoretical importance: the theoretical speculations about the structure of linguistic petence can only be validated if they give rise to a formal framework which allows for the specification of descriptively adequate grammars. Because theoretical linguists do not seem particularly interested in this boundary condition of their work, the application-oriented grammar-development activities constitute a useful and necessary plement to theoretical linguistic research.
Language-technological work has shown in the meantime that for the development of theoretically interesting grammars, putational support is indispensible. Formal grammars which describe some non-trivial phenomena in a partially correct way tend to get extremely plex -- so plex, that it is difficult to imagine how they could be tested, maintained and extended without putational tools.
There is another reason why language technology is interesting for linguistic theory: language-technological applications involve systems which are intended to work with some form of "real language" as input. Implementing a petence grammar will therefore be not enough in the end: one also needs sofare which deals with possibly relevant performance phenomena, and this sofare must interface in an adequate way with the petence grammar. The possibility of plementing a petence-grammar with an account of performance phenomena is another boundary condition of current linguistic theory which does not receive a lot of attention in theoretical research. Language-technological research may also be of theoretical importance here.
There are thus many opportunities for interesting interactions beeen language theory and language technology; but until recently such interactions did not often occur. For a long time, language technology has developed in relative isolation from theoretical linguistics. This isolation came about because Chomsky's formulation of his syntactic insights crucially used the notion of a "transformation" -- and many found this a putationally unattractive notion, especially for *** ysis-algorithms. Computational linguists felt they needed to develop alternative methods for language description which were more directly coupled to locally observable properties of surface structure, and therefore more easy to implement; this gave rise to Augmented Transition Neorks and enriched contextfree grammars. After the heydays of Transformational Grammar were over, there has been a remarkable rapprochement beeen language theory and language technology, because enriched contextfree grammars, which are considered putationally attractive, acquired theoretical respectability. Gazdar, Pullum and Sag created a breakthrough in this area with their Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar.
For enriched contextfree grammars, effective parsing algorithms have been developed. There are procedures which establish the grammaticality of an arbitrary input-sentence in a reasonably efficient way, and determine its structural description(s) as defined by the grammar. This has made it possible to implement interesting prototype-systems which *** yse their input in accordance with such a grammar. The results of this approach have been encouraging. They were certainly better than the results of peting approaches from Artificial Intelligence which worked without formal syntax (such as the prototypical versions of "frame-based parsing" and "neural neorks"). Nevertheless the practical application of linguistic grammars in language processing systems is not without problems. These we consider in the next section.
3. Limitations of current language processing systems.
The applicability of currently existing linguistic technology depends of course on the availability of descriptively adequate grammars for substantial fragments of natural languages. But writing a system of rules which provides a good characterization of the grammatical structures of a natural language turns out to be surprisingly difficult. There is no formal grammar yet which correctly describes the richness of a natural language -- not even a formal grammar which adequately covers a non-trivial corpus of a substantial size. The problem is not only that the grammar of natural language is large and plex, and that we therefore still need hard work and deep thought to describe it. The process of developing a formal grammar for a particular natural language is especially disappointing because it bees increasingly difficult and laborious as the grammar gets larger. The larger the number of phenomena that are already partially accounted for, the larger the number of interactions that must be inspected when one tries to introduce an account of new phenomena.
A second problem with the current syntax/parsing-paradigm is even easier to notice: the problem of ambiguity. It turns out that as soon as a grammar characterises a non-trivial part of natural language, almost every input-sentence with a certain length has many (often very many) different structural *** yses (and corresponding semantic interpretations). This is problematic because usually most of these interpretations are not perceived as possible by a human language user, although there is no reason to exclude them on formal syntactic or semantic grounds. Often it is only a matter of relative implausibility: the only reason why the language user does not bee aware of a particular interpretation of a sentence, is that another interpretation is more plausible.
The o problems I mentioned are not independent of each other. Because of the first problem (the disquieting binatorics of interacting syntactic phenomena), we might be inclined to stop refining the syntactic subcategories at a certain point, thus ending up with a more "tolerant" grammar which accepts various less happy constructions as nevertheless grammatical. This is a possible strategy, because the Chomskyan paradigm does not clearly fix how language petence is to be delimited with respect to language performance. Not all judgments of sentences as "strange", "unusual", "infelicitous", "incorrect", or "uninterpretable" need to be viewed as negative grammaticality-judgments; ultimately the elegance of the resulting theory determines whether certain unwellformedness-judgments are to be explained by the petence-grammar or by the performance-module. But the designer of a language-processing system who relaxes the system's grammar is not finished by doing that: he is confronted with an increased ambiguity in the grammatical *** ysis process, and must design a performance-module which can make a sensible selection from the set of alternative *** yses.
4. Competence and Performance.
The limitations of current language processing systems are not surprising: they follow immediately from the fact that these systems are built on a petence-grammar in the Chomskyan sense. As mentioned above, Chomsky made an emphatic distinction beeen the "petence" of a language user and the "performance" of this language user. The petence consists in the knowledge of language which the language user in principle has; the performance is the result of the psychological process that employs this knowledge (in producing or in interpreting language utterances).
The formal grammars that theoretical linguistics is concerned with, aim at characterising the petence of the language user. But the preferences that language users display in dealing with syntactically ambiguous sentences constitute a prototypical example of a phenomenon that in the Chomskyan view belongs to the realm of performance.
The ambiguity-problem discussed above follows from an intrinsic limitation of linguistic petence-grammars: such grammars define the sentences of a language and the corresponding structural *** yses, but they do not specify a probability ordering or any other ranking beeen the different sentences or beeen the different *** yses of one sentence. This limitation is even more serious when a grammar is used for processing input which frequently contains mistakes. Such a situation occurs in processing spoken language. The output of a speech recognition system is always very imperfect, because such a system often only makes guesses about the identity of its input-words. In this situation the parsing mechani *** has an additional task, which it doesn't have in dealing with correctly typed alpha-numeric input. The speech recognition module may discern several alternative word sequences in the input signal; only one of these is correct, and the parsing-module must employ its syntactic information to arrive at an optimal decision about the nature of the input. A simple yes/no judgment about the grammaticality of a word sequence is insufficient for this purpose: many word sequences are strictly speaking grammatical but very implausible; and the number of word sequences of this kind gets larger when a grammar accounts for a larger number of phenomena.
To construct effective language processing systems, we must therefore implement performance-grammars rather than petence-grammars. These performance-grammars must not only contain information about the structural possibilities of the general language system, but also about "accidental" details of the actual language use in a language munity, which determine the language experiences of an individual, and thereby influence what kind of utterances this individual expects to encounter, and what structures and meanings these utterances are expected to have.
The linguistic perspective on performance involves the implicit assumption that language behaviour can be accounted for by a system that prises a petence-grammar as an identifiable sub-ponent. But because of the ambiguity problem this assumption is putationally unattractive: if we would find criteria to prefer certain syntactic *** yses above others, the efficiency of the whole process might benefit if these criteria were applied in an early stage, integrated with the strictly syntactic rules. This would amount to an integrated implementation of petence- and performance-notions.
But we can also go one step further, and fundamentally question the customary concept of a petence-grammar. We can try to account for language-performance without invoking an explicit petence-grammar. (This would mean that grammaticality-judgments are to be accounted for as performance phenomena which do not have a different cognitive status than other performance phenomena.) This is the idea that I want to work out somewhat more concretely now. Later (in section 7) I will return to the possible theoretical merits of this point of view.
5. Statistics.
There is an alternative language description tradition which has always focussed on the concrete details of actual language use, often without paying much attention to the abstract language system: the statistical tradition. In this approach the characterisation of syntactic structures is often pletely ignored; one only describes "superficial" statistical properties of representative language corpus that is as large as possible. Usually one simply indicates the occurrence frequencies of different words, the probability that a specific word is followed by another specific word, the probability that a specific sequence of 2 words is followed by a specific word, e (nth order Markov chains). See, for instance, Bahl et al. (1983), Jelinek (1986).
The Markov-approach has been very succesful for the purpose of selecting the most probable sentence from the set of possible outputs generated by a speech recognition ponent. It is clear, however, that for various other purposes this approach is pletely insufficient, beacuse it does not employ a notion of syntactic structure. For a natural-language database-interface, for instance, semantic interpretation rules must be applied, on the basis of a structural *** ysis of the input. And there are also statistically significant regularities in corpus-sentences which enpass long word sequences through syntactic structures; in the Markov approach these are ignored. The challenge is now, to develop a method for language description and parsing which does justice to the statistical as well as the structural aspects of language.
The idea that a synthesis beeen the syntactical and the statistical approaches would be useful and interesting has been broached incidentally before, but so far it has not been thought through very well. The only existing technical instantiation, the concept of a stochastic grammar, is rather simplistic. Such a grammar just juxtaposes the most basic syntactic notion with the most basic probabilistic notion: an "old-fashioned" contextfree grammar describes syntactic structures by means of a system of rewrit
素质教育用英语怎么说
素质 教育 是指一种以提高受教育者诸方面素质为目标的教育模式。它重视人的思想道德素质、能力培养、个性发展、身体健康和心理健康教育。那么你知道素质教育用英语怎么说吗?下面和我一起来学习一下素质教育的英语说法吧。
素质教育的英语说法1：
Competence Education
素质教育的英语说法2：
Quality Education
素质教育的英语说法3：
education for all-around
素质教育相关英语表达：
心理素质教育 mental quality education
注重素质教育 Focus On Quality Education
素质教育模式 Quality Education Model
道德素质教育 moral quality education
素质教育目标 Objective of Quality Education
素质教育制度 the quality-centered system
素质教育的英语例句：
1. Marginalized in the humanistic quality of education will face a new crisis.
处在边缘化的人文素质教育将面临新的危机.
2. Is there a set of news about education of all - around development?
有关素质明余友教育的一组激槐新闻?
3. It caters to quality education and should be greatly promoted.
它迎合了素质教育的需求,应该加以大力提倡.
4. Teacher is the critical factor to out quality - oriented education.
教师是实施素质教育的关键因素.
5. Third part: Solves the university student education development method and the way.
第三部分: 解决大学生素质教育的 方法毁笑 和途径.
6. EQ education is an important aspect of quality - oriented education.
情商教育是素质教育的一个重要方面,在教育飞速发展的今天,情商教育受到普遍关注.
7. The innovation ability be the core of education for all - round development.
创新能力是素质教育的核心.
8. Schools and arts education is quality education in a beautiful landscape.
艺术教育是学校开展素质教育的一道亮丽风景.
9. Li Lanqing : The key to character education resides with leadership.
李岚清: 实施素质教育,关键在领导.
10. The education all - around development basic direction lies in the education the modernization.
素质教育的根本方向在于教育的现代化.
11. Experiment teaching is an important practice step in college quality education system.
在高校素质教育体系中,实验教学是一个极其重要的实践教学环节.
12. The connotation of chemical quality education embody technical quality and affective quality.
化学素质教育的内涵包括学科素质及情感素质.
13. Effective methods for the education are also suggested in this paper.
并探讨了培养图书馆青年志愿者信息素质教育的有效方法和途径.
14. From merely book learning to quality education including various comprehensive studying.
从单纯书本教育转为素质教育、创新人才教育.
15. Out - of - school education is an important approach to implement quality - oriented education.
校外教育是实施素质教育的重要途径.