On the Function of Humor in English Writing as Foreign Language Teaching Pedagogy
Submitted by:
Shuo Zhao
Abstract:
Abstract:
Writing is a practical process in English as Foreign Language (EFL). At present, there are some popular writing pedagogical methods in western countries such as process, product, and content approaches. They all have their advantages and disadvantages. However, in terms of English teaching tradition in Chinese context and Chinese students’ writing levels, humor teaching pedagogy, which combines the product and the process approaches in English writing pedagogy, is one of the best ways to improve students’ writing skill. Besides, appropriate application of humor can contribute to the improvement of the relationship between students and teachers, stimulate the interest in learning English, and enhance the writing motivation, therefore improve students’ writing ability in quality education.
The article applies product approach by Nunan (1989) and process approach by Keh (1990), which aims to prove the validity of the aforementioned viewpoints through methodology of case study in group writing. The process of humor pedagogy is classified into five steps: Pre-test, Humor Function in Writing and Teaching Pedagogy, Writing Evaluation, Writing Modification, Colloquia between Students and Teachers. Finally, some suggestions are proposed through case study.
Using humor in a classroom can increase learning. Humor can be used to support and illustrate the text as long as the topic of the humor is in accord with the subject. We should avoid forced analogy that might overshadow the lesson. In fact some jokes are very good at illustrating social events while others distract from the lesson. Attention must be paid to the selection of the type of the humor used. Good selections have the power of killing two birds with one stone, they teach both language and culture.
Keywords: Humor Function; English Writing; Teaching Pedagogy
References:
Carrel, P. L. et al. 1988. Interactive Approaches to Second Language Reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, P125-128.
Connor, U. 1996. Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-cultural Aspects of Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, P65-70.
Cortazzi, M. & Jin, L. X. 1996.English teaching and learning in China. Language Teaching. 29(2), P 61-79.
Jack C. Richards. 1990. The Language Teaching Matrix. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, P106-110.
Kasanga, L. A. 1996. Peer interaction and L2 learning. The Canadian Modern Language Review. 52(4), P 611-639.
Keh, C. 1990. Feedback in the Writing Process: A Model and Methods for Implementation. ELT Journal 43(4), P294-300.
Qingbin Chen.2016. On Reconstruction of Foreign Language Teaching in Big Data.Foreign Language Research.36(3), P23~25.
Nunan, D. 1989. Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, P36-50.
Rossner, R. & Bolitho, R. 1988.Currents of Change in English Language Teaching. Oxford; Oxford University Press, P188-190..
Schiffrin, D. 1994. Approaches to Discourse. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell, P95-100.
Silva, T. 1993. Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: the ESL research and its implication. TESOL Quarterly. 27(4), P 657-677.
Shuyuan Zhao.2014. On Strategy of Improving College English Writing. Intelligence, 38(26), P12~14.