메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색
질문

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
저널정보
한국영어학회 영어학 영어학 Volume.1 Number.4
발행연도
2001.12
수록면
587 - 608 (22page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색
질문

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
When teaching English in elementary schools was introduced in Korea in 1997, the theoretical basis was the critical period hypothesis (CPH). The object of this study was to test whether the Korean situation satisfies the conditions for the CPH such as the amount of English input and needs. As a test for this, English input and needs were compared in Korea, the U.S.A. and Singapore. The items for English input were on a continuum of primary to secondary sources and the items for English needs were on a continuum of immediate to future needs. The 0-5 scale was used. The result showed that the total means of English input were 4.87, 4.62, and 1.05 for children in the U.S.A., Singapore and Korea respectively. The total means of English needs were 4.32, 3.81, and 1.52 for children in the U.S.A., Singapore and Korea respectively. These figures show that Korean children's levels of both input and needs were from "almost none" to "little," while those of children in the U.S.A. and Singapore were from "much" to "very much." This shows that teaching English in Korea presently is far from meeting the conditions that are expected by the CPH. As an alternative to explain what happens cognitively to Korean children, this paper suggests the automatization and proceduralization processes.

목차

1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Issues behind the CPH
3. A Comparison of English Input and Needs in Korea, the U.S.A., and Singapore
4. Concluding Remarks
5. An Alternative Explanation
References

참고문헌 (0)

참고문헌 신청

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!

이 논문의 저자 정보

이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0

UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-740-014894611