中國科技大學通識教育中心英語文證照奬勵金實施要點 中華民國 105 年 1 月 8 日通識教育委員會議通過 一、 中國科技大學(以下簡稱本校)為鼓勵本校學生通過具公信力機構之英語文能力測驗或 取得證照,特訂定「中國科技大學通識教育中心英語文證照獎勵金實施要點」(以下簡 稱本要點)。 二、 學生於就讀本校期間,通過歐盟共同架構(CEFR)語言能力參考指標 B1(中級)同等級英 語文能力測驗以上(含)者,得依據本要點酌予獎勵。檢測項目請參閱本中心「歐洲語言 學習、教學、評量共同參考架構與各英語檢測分級對照表」(參見附表);未列於標準 對照表之測驗項目不給予獎助。 三、 凡本校學生,除應英系外,均得申請。大學部學生通過同等級以申請一次為限,在學期 間得重複申請,但該次申請之級別不得低於前次。 本獎勵金每學期核發乙次,每次核發全校前 10 名,各名次核發金額如附表。 四、 申請人應提供在學期間,申請當(學)期參加考試之證明文件及成績證明或證照,以憑辦 理。 五、 獎勵金申請作業:請至通識教育中心網頁下載「英語文證照獎勵金申請表」(附件 1), 填妥後檢附成績單正本及影本(背面簽名並註明與正本無異)各一份、本人金融帳戶存 簿(郵局或土地銀行)封面影本送至通識教育中心。 通識教育中心得每學期遴選受獎代表,擇期公開頒奬,並辦理後續請款作業。 六、 奬勵金申請期限:通過相關證照考試半年內應提出申請,逾期視同放棄。 七、 本要點之獎勵金由學校開設通識教育中心專戶,一切收支專款專用;每年度如有剩餘 款,則移至翌年度繼續使用。 八、 本要點經通識教育中心會議審查通過,陳請校長核定後公告實施,修訂時亦同。

文化と言語の多様性の中のCommon European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment (CEFR)--それは基準か? (第10回明海大学大学院応用言語学研究科セミナー 講演)

On behalf of Mr. Koichiro Matsuura, Director-General of UNESCO, it is my great pleasure to welcome you all to this international scientific conference. Drylands are often considered fragile ecosystems, yet they have a remarkable resilience to stress. They are home to unique and well-adapted plant and animal species that we need to conserve. Some of the world’s greatest cultures and belief systems have originated in drylands. On the other hand, desertification and land degradation in drylands often result in poverty and cause environmental refugees to abandon their homes. These problems can only be addressed in a holistic manner, based on sound scientific research and findings. Solutions to the problems of dryland degradation need to be communicated as widely as possible through education at all levels. These are many reasons why UNESCO – within its mandate of science, education, culture and communication – took the intiative to organize this conference. And we are glad that so many partners have responded to our call. UNESCO considers this conference as its main contribution to the observance of the International Year of Deserts and Desertification in 2006. We have deliberately chosen the title ‘The Future of Drylands’ as we feel it is time to redefine our priorities for science, education and governance in the drylands based on 50 years of scientific research in arid and semi-arid zones. In fact UNESCO has one of the longest traditions, within the UN system, of addressing dryland problems from an interdisciplinary, scientific point of view. In 1955, the ‘International Arid Land Meetings’ were held in Socorro, New Mexico (USA). They were organized by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), sponsored by UNESCO and supported by the Rockefeller Foundation. One important output of the International Arid Land Meetings was a book entitled The Future of Drylands, edited by Gilbert F. White and published in

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

/pdf/government-printing-office-expands-database-access-3paa9elw22.pdf

Government Printing Office expands database access

In ELT literature, the reader often finds the terms Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) and immersion used interchangeably, even though there are important differences between them. These two labels usually appear as generic terms covering any kind of teaching in which an L2 is used to teach content. In this article, we attempt to unravel this ambiguity from the Spanish context, describing from a psycholinguistic and methodological point of view the aspects they share and, above all, their main differences. Although CLIL can be implemented in different foreign languages, the fact is that English is the language overwhelmingly used as a means of instruction in most European countries (Eurydice. 2006. Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) at School in Europe. Brussels: European Commission).

Immersion and CLIL in English: more differences than similarities

Francesca Helm, University of Padova Telecollaboration is an area of CALL research and practice which has developed considerably in the last twenty years. Many research studies have been carried out and important findings have been made, but there has not yet been a large scale survey to try and ‘map’ the state of the art in telecollaboration practice. Most studies focus on single telecollaboration projects and look at the project design, learning outcomes and difficulties teachers and researchers have encountered in that particular project. This paper reports on a survey which sought to explore current practices and attitudes towards telecollaboration across European universities and to identify barriers that practitioners encounter. The survey was completed in full by a total of 210 university language teachers in 23 different European countries and 131 students. The picture we found presents a broad spectrum of practices. Despite an overwhelmingly positive attitude towards telecollaboration, findings also provide large-scale confirmation of some of the problems identified in small-scale studies, such as organizational difficulties, lack of time, limited technical support and great uncertainty regarding issues students should address in their exchanges. The paper concludes with some recommendations as to how to meet these challenges and how telecollaboration practice could become mainstreamed in higher education.

/pdf/the-practices-and-challenges-of-telecollaboration-in-higher-10qljwc311.pdf

The practices and challenges of telecollaboration in higher education in europe

0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 EURYDICE

Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe. 2012 Edition.

Mathematics Education in Europe: Common Challenges and National Policies.

EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EU EURYDICE EURYDICE E EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE E YDICE ERYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDIC EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EUR EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EUR ICE ICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDI EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURY EURDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYD EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYD EURYICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDI EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYD EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYD EURYDCE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDIC EURYDIURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EU EURYDIRYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EUR EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDIC EURYDICEURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE E EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDIC URYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EU EURYDICEDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYD EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE E EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EU EURYDICE EDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYD EURYDICE E CE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDIC EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EUR EURYDICE EU EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE E EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURY EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURYDICE EURY EURYDICE EURYDICE

Teaching Reading in Europe: Contexts, Policies and Practices.

Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe. 2017 Edition. Eurydice Report.

This paper brings together data on national policies for improving reading achievement with student reading outcomes according to the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2009 data. It is based on a two-step analysis. Firstly, the prevalence of national policies for improving reading achievement (i.e., specialist reading teachers, national tests for identifying individual learning needs and curriculum guidelines on reading comprehension strategies) is described in 32 European countries. Secondly, a three-level regression analysis is performed in order to assess the relative impact of the analysed national policies. The results indicate that the provision of reading specialists for providing targeted support to students with difficulties and advice to teachers seems to be the most important measure. Moreover, central level regulation by education authorities can be an effective way to assure the right to a reading specialist for every student in need.

/pdf/patterns-in-national-policies-for-support-of-low-achievers-22fge812bf.pdf

Akvile Motiejunaite

Papers

Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe. 2012 Edition.

Mathematics Education in Europe: Common Challenges and National Policies.

Teaching Reading in Europe: Contexts, Policies and Practices.

Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe. 2017 Edition. Eurydice Report.

Patterns in National Policies for Support of Low Achievers in Reading across Europe.