YAN Xiao-Yun obtained her M.A. in English as a Foreign Language and Applied Linguistics from Donghua University, Shanghai, China before she started to teach in Lida Polytechnic Institute, Shanghai, China. She has taught reading, listening and speaking, and writing. She is especially interested in Foreign Language Teaching Methodology and Computer-Assisted Language Learning.

ZHOU Zhi-Yang received his MBA in Marketing from Donghua University, Shanghai, China in 2005 and his BBA in Marketing from Jiangsu University, Jiangsu, China in 2000. He has worked for BP, Sinopec and ZTE. His research interests concentrate on quantitative analysis of various subjects, such as marketing, psychology and sociology.

DAI Peixing is currently an associate professor in applied linguistics at Donghua University, Shanghai China. He has taught in various positions for thirty years and has served as a supervisor of the MA program, the director of CALL Project since 2001. He was once a deputy chairman of the Foreign Languages School of the University and a visiting scholar of Aston University, UK, sponsored by the Chinese Government. Dai's research interests are in methodology, constructivist learning and Computer Assisted Language Learning

Abstract
In general, eclecticism in language teaching holds that although no single language teaching method manages to meet all the teaching and learning needs, many methods have valuable insights that should be drawn on. But it has been criticized for its lack of principles. Thus principled eclecticism and teaching by principles have been pursued. This study investigated the attitudes and perceptions of the College English teachers in China towards eclecticism and principled eclecticism in their teaching in the intensive English language program, and the methods or approaches and teaching techniques they employ; and, through a case study, it probed whether the real teaching practice of principled eclecticism was as eclectic and principled as the proponents described at the theoretical level. After analyzing the questionnaire from 155 teachers and 51 students, a 12-week classroom observation, and person-to-person interviews, the authors find that eclecticism does exist and is widely practiced by College English teachers and is warmly welcomed by the students.
Key words: eclecticism, principled eclecticism, College English teaching

Introduction
Since the early 20th century when English Language Teaching (ELT) in China entered into the formal educational system, Chinese ELT teachers and researchers have been seeking the best method for ELT. Different methods have been introduced, tried out and found unsatisfactory, among them, the Direct Method in the early decades of the century, the Situational Method in the 1960s, the Audiolingual Method in the 1970s, and the Communicative Approach in the 1980s. Through trial and error, people have realized no single method seems good enough to be universally accepted as best. In teaching practice, many have come to favor of eclecticism, which generally holds that although no single ELT method can meet all teaching and learning needs, many ELT methods have valuable insights into ELT that should be drawn on. However, without principles, eclecticism is likely to fall into a state of arbitrariness. Thus teachers need a set of principles to adapt their teaching procedure to the specific circumstances. We know a great deal about methods and approaches in terms of how the advocates of a particular method believe a method or a technique should be used, but few data are available on what actually happens to the techniques when teachers use them in the classroom, as Richards and Rodgers (1986, p.163) claim.

So the present study not only investigated the attitudes and perceptions of College English teachers in China towards eclecticism and principled eclecticism in their teaching in intensive English language programs, and the methods or approaches and teaching techniques they employ; but also probed, through a case study, whether the real teaching practice of principled eclecticism was eclectic and principled as the advocates described at the theoretical level.

Review of the literature
Eclecticism in language teaching itself has given rise to much controversy. According to Fan (1999), many other applied linguists, teachers and scholars in western countries have been in favor of eclecticism, and among them are Long (1980), Bell (1981), Brumfit (1984), Yalden (1987), Schmidt (1989), and Stern (1992). In China, there are still more proponents of eclecticism, such as Yang (1997), Li (1998), Fan (1999), Rao (2000), Shen (2001), Wang (2001), Xu (2002), Chen (2001), Dong (2003), Wang and Huang (2003), Zhang and Chen (2003), etc. However, there are also some opponents to the effectiveness of eclecticism in language teaching. For example, Stern (1983) doubted about eclecticism for “there is no agreement as to what the different methods precisely stand for, nor how they could be satisfactorily combined” (p. 482); and for it does not “provide any principles by which to include or exclude features which form part of existing theories or practices” (1992, p. 11). Marton (1988), who put forward four eclectic strategies which allegedly can be usefully applied to remedial teaching, argued that “practical eclecticism does not meet the criterion of efficiency, while theoretical eclecticism is suspicious on logical and theoretical grounds” (p. 86). A Chinese opponent (Dai, 2002, p. 64) argues that the fault of eclecticism in language teaching lies in that it attempts to make a kind of all-purpose language teaching out of the existing methods and approaches and to persuade that eclecticism is the only right idea in foreign language teaching methodology (my translation).

Eclecticism has also been viewed in discriminating ways. Widdowson (1990) argues:

“It is quite common to hear teachers say that they do not subscribe to any particular approach or method in their teaching but are ‘eclectic’. They thereby avoid commitment to any current fad that comes up on the whirligig of fashion. This might be regarded as prudent common sense. But if by eclecticism is meant the random and expedient use of whatever technique comes most readily to hand, then it has no merit whatever. It is indeed professionally irresponsible if it is claimed as a pedagogic principle.” (p. 50)

Johnson (1998, 1999) noted that “eclecticism’s strength is recognition of diversity, its weakness a tendency to vagueness and lack of principle” (p. 104).

It can be then concluded that pure eclecticism in language teaching is not convincing and principled eclecticism is needed. So it is partially such argumentations that generated the study of principled eclecticism. Thus the origin of principled eclecticism in language teaching can be assumed as not as old-fashioned as it was thought to be. Research on principled eclecticism was appended to research on eclectic approaches in second/foreign language teaching instead of being studied as an independent topic until the term “principled eclecticism” was seen in works by Larsen-Freeman (2000) and Mellow (2000; 2002).

Mellow (2000; 2002) has used the term “principled eclecticism” to describe the “desirable, coherent, and pluralistic” approach, which involves the use of a variety of language learning activities in a discriminating manner as required by learner needs and styles. According to Mellow (2002), principled eclecticism has been given a variety of names:

•effective or successful eclecticism,
•enlightened eclecticism,
•informed or well-informed eclecticism,
•integrative eclecticism,
•new eclecticism,
•planned eclecticism,
•systematic eclecticism,
•technical eclecticism, etc.

It is called “disciplined eclecticism” byRodgers (2001), according to whom this approach is “likely to shape the teaching of second languages in the next decades of the new millennium” (Rodgers, 2001). The fact that it had many names testifies to the influence and popularity of this theory.

To achieve the goal of principled eclecticism, Mellow (2002) proposed principles for categorizing, selecting, and sequencing teaching/learning activities. Activities are categorized in relation to the “Two-Dimensional Model” (as is shown in the following figure), including four quadrants that result from the intersection of the dimensions of language and learning. Language is categorized as form or function. Learning is categorized as construction or growth. The centre of the quadrant is characterized as “contextualized attention to signs”.

Figure 1 The Two-Dimensional Model of types of language teaching activities, with example activities placed (extracted from Mellow, 2002)

   Mellow’s (2002) “centering principle” constrains selection and sequencing: Activities within a lesson should (i) maintain coherence by consistently focusing upon the same formal and/or functional units, and (ii) be sequenced so that, by the end of the lesson, learners have engaged in activities that require contextualized attention to signs. His hypothesis is in consistency with “noticing” as a solution to the problem that “the lack of grammar instruction in the Communicative Approach has often produced students who communicate well but lack grammatical competency” (Noonan, 2004). It’s also supported by the finding that adult students’ attitudes and perceptions toward “explicit grammar instruction” are positive (Ikpia, 2001).

   It seems the previously reviewed two sets of principles are not evident enough for comprising principled eclecticism. Scholars and teachers (e.g. Brown (1994b), Chen (2001), Larsen-Freeman (2000), Marton (1988), and Mellow (2002)) who study them and conduct action-research define the principles from other perspectives as they deem suitable, and they name them differently as they see fit. Therefore, the range of principles can be quite wide, and the names given to the principles are likely to vary from one another. For example, Brown (1994b, p. 74) states the TESOL profession will finally become mature when we realize and admit the complexity of language learners requires an “eclectic blend of tasks each tailored for a particular group of learners”. Rao (2001) suggests, from a broad perspective, perceiving the Chinese learners or even East Asian learners as a whole, that teaching and learning styles be matched to reduce teacher-student style conflicts, especially in foreign language instruction. She advises that an effective way is for teachers to provide a variety of activities to meet the needs of different learning styles, so that all students will have at least some activities that appeal to them based on their learning styles, and they are more likely to be successful in these activities.

   Brown (1994b, p. 74) insists that an “enlightened eclectic” teacher should take an approach that includes most if not all of the principles he has concluded. That is, teachers ought to take all the principles in the respects of cognition, affection and linguistics in to consideration at the same time.

   Language teaching, especially foreign language teaching, is so complicated that the principles put forward are, though surely enlightening to language teachers, by no means exhaustive or suitable for all. Trial and re-trial are still called for. Modifications and supplements are to be further explored by empirical research to suit the dynamics of the language teaching and learning classroom, which is what a growing enlightened eclectic teacher should do in their own teaching practices.

Methodology of this study
My methodology included two levels — macro and micro levels. The level-1 study contained a pilot study and an extensive survey. In the fall of 2004, the author conducted the pilot study to examine the attitudes of the English teachers of English majors towards Foreign Language Teaching Methodology (FLTM). The factors that influenced their choice of teaching method were also explored. Through the pilot study, the teacher questionnaire proved to be effective. Yet more specific questions were added to the teacher questionnaire to be used as an instrument for the main study in the spring 2005 semester. The extensive survey of 155 teachers from twenty universities in seven provinces and two municipalities in China was conducted to investigate the attitudes of College English teachers in the Intensive English Language Program (IELP) towards eclecticism, principled eclecticism and their teaching principles and techniques, which were analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively. The questionnaires were printed and sent out with the help of the author’s friends and sent back to the author either by EMS or by e-mail. Data thus collected were put into the computer and twenty-one copies which had too many missing data were excluded. Then with the software SPSS 11.0, the author obtained the results of the descriptive analysis.

Level-2 study used a case study approach consisting of qualitative methods of data gathering and analysis. In the spring 2005 semester, the author observed, taking field-notes and videotaping, a College English class in the IELP at a key state university in Shanghai, China, for twelve weeks. The teacher held eclecticism in her teaching; the textbook explicitly informed that the teaching method was of eclecticism; and there were 51 students registered in the class. In the early stage of the field observation, the 51 students were surveyed with a questionnaire that elicited their English learning motivation, attitudes and needs. At the end of the semester, three of them were selected, as representatives of three typical learning styles, to participate in semi-structured interviews which asked them about their changes in this semester in terms of English learning attitudes, needs, interest, and autonomy. The interviewees’ words that were considered most relevant to the study were transcribed and compared. The field observation was transcribed and observations sorted out by principles behind each technique observed. Then the sorted principles were compared with the principled summarized by Brown (1994b).
All the questionnaires and interviews in the study were originally in Chinese. To better the readers’ comprehension, the author has translated some schedules of the questionnaires and interviews into English and attached them as well as a sample of the field observations and some analyses to the end of the article as Appendices.

Results and discussion
1. The attitudes of the English teachers towards eclecticism and principled eclecticism

Out of the 35 teachers who participated in the pilot study, 33 of them said they took an eclectic approach in their ELT. According to the results of the questionnaire in the extensive survey, 81.3 percent of the College English teachers held a positive attitude and perception toward eclecticism, 9.7 percent were uncertain about it, and only 9.0 percent opposed it.

Attitudes	Numerical Value	Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Strongly agree	5.00	33	24.6	24.6	24.6
Agree	4.00	76	56.7	56.7	81.3
Uncertain	3.00	13	9.7	9.7	91.0
Disagree	2.00	10	7.5	7.5	98.5
Strongly disagree	1.00	2	1.5	1.5	100.0
	Total	134	100.0	100.0

Figure 2 Frequency statistics of the attitudes towards eclecticism

And the principles of eclecticism, to their understanding, could be teachers’ teaching and learning experience, principles of certain methods and approaches in general use, research findings, and/or the principles summarized by ELT scholars and teachers. Personal teaching and learning experience was believed to be a major source of teaching principles. About 15.0 percent just followed intuition in their teaching giving no fig for teaching method.

2. Methods/approaches and techniques employed by the College English teachers
The College English teachers did not confine themselves to one method/approach, but they were eclectic. In practice, teachers employed methods and approaches with or without one of them as the main construct. The techniques employed by the College English teachers in the IELP, if taken as a whole, focused on both form and function but slightly more on form and resulted in both learning and acquisition (subconscious) but a bit more in learning (conscious).

Figure 3 The placement of classroom activities or techniques and the weighted average teaching techniques

Note: 1＝Checking; 2＝Content explanation; 3＝Identification; 4＝Drill; 5＝Testing; 6＝Review; 7＝Recognition; 8＝Question-answer, display; 9＝Dialogue/Narrative referential; 10＝Copying; 11＝Reading aloud; 12＝Dictation; 13＝Translation; 14＝Dialogue/Narrative presentation; 15＝Role-play demonstration 16＝Meaningful drill; 17＝Wrap-up; 18＝Brainstorming; 19＝Information transfer; 20＝Composition; 21＝Report; 22＝Preparation 23＝Cued narrative/Dialogue 24＝Question-answer, referential; 25＝Story-telling; 26＝Problem solving; 27＝Discussion; 28＝Games; 29＝Drama; 30＝Interview; 31＝Information exchange; 32＝Narration/exposition; 33＝Simulation; 34＝Role-play 35＝A propos

3. The instructor’s belief and the results of student questionnaire, classroom observations, and person-to-person interviews

The instructor under study believes in principled eclecticism. She learnt FLTM in her undergraduate and postgraduate study and considers the up-to-date research findings as the main source of teaching principles. In her eyes, language is more a system of function of communication than a system of structure though it is both, and the process of foreign/second language learning includes both conscious learning and subconscious learning or natural communication. That gives an account of the techniques she employed in her teaching.

The students showed their unanimous satisfaction with their teacher’s teaching techniques, organization, and behavior.

The lectures the researcher observed were reasonably well planned and efficiently executed. It is not, of course, necessarily perfect. The teacher competently planned the lessons around the textbook, managed everything with no major problems, and carried out the various activities with warmth and enthusiasm. She spoke clearly and reassuringly and verbal encouragement and compliments were often made.

According to the interviews, all the students have made great progress in English learning, especially in vocabulary, reading and listening. Due to the rapport between the teacher and the students and the lively classroom atmosphere, the students learned efficiently in class. They have begun to take responsibility of their own English learning process. The ambivalent student began to interact more with the instructor and spend more time on English, the extroverted students became more active. The introverted student began to find his own way, taking an extra listening and speaking course, to pursue remedial learning. It can be concluded that, besides the learners’ progress in the integrated skills in English, their interest and motivation in learning English were greatly enhanced.

4. Comparison of the classroom observations and the principles proposed by Mellow (2002) and Brown (1994b) respectively
The lectures given by the instructor were consistent with the principled eclecticism proposed by Mellow (2002). The lectures were topic-based. Each lesson maintained coherence by consistently focusing upon the functional units. The lectures were so sequenced that by the end of the lesson, learners had engaged in activities that required contextualized attention to signs, or noticing.

However, the principles observed included six specific principles that are excluded in the principles put forward by Brown (1994b). They are

1) A student can learn from what is present in the environment, even if his attention is not directed to it;
2) If the students trusts and respects the teacher’s authority, he will accept and retain information better;
3) Reading in the target language should be taught from the beginning of language instruction; however, the reading skill will be developed through practice with speaking. Language is primarily speech;
4) An important goal is for students to be able to translate each language into the other and if students can translate from one language into another, they are considered successful language learners;
5) The teacher should help the students “activate” the material to which they have been exposed. The means of doing this should be varied so as to avoid repetition as much as possible. Novelty aids acquisition;
6) Dramatization is a particularly valuable way of playfully activating the material. Fantasy reduces barriers to learning.

What is worth mentioning is the principle observed that the teacher is the authority in class and it is very important that students get the correct answer is typically in the learning English as a foreign language context where few opportunities arise outside the classroom to use the language communicatively. In this context, the teacher is the only person they have real-live contact with who speaks English so that in this respect the teacher becomes the authority and takes the responsibility of giving feedback to learners. By comparing the instructor’s principles observed with the principles expounded by Brown (1994b), it can be concluded that the former are not only in line with the latter but more inclusive than the latter.

Conclusion.

1. Findings
Despite their unfamiliarity with the terms (Only 26% of the teacher participants had known “eclecticism” and “principled eclecticism” before they took part in the study.), the overwhelming majority of the College English teachers held positive attitudes and perceptions toward eclecticism and principled eclecticism in the IELP. But their beliefs about the main source of principles vary, from teachers’ teaching and learning experience, the principles of a certain teaching method/approach, research findings to the available teaching principles of different schools of teaching and learning.

The research showed that the College English teachers did not confine themselves to one method/approach, but they were eclectic in approach. They employed more than one method/approach with or without one of them as the main construct. And their techniques were, if taken as a whole, at the center of the Two-Dimension Model, generally focusing on both form and function and resulting in both learning (conscious) and acquisition (subconscious).

The field observation demonstrated the real practice of principled eclecticism in College English teaching. It also found that in comparison with the principles put forward by Mellow (2002) and those by Brown (1994b), the principles underlying the teaching practice under study were not only in line with them, but included more aspects. For every moment of a classroom hour, certain choices were made, choices that could for the most part be justified by the collective knowledge of second language acquisition and teaching.
Every coin has two sides. Principled eclecticism is no exception. On the one hand, principled eclecticism enlightens teachers to adapt themselves to the dynamics of their classes on the basis of their collective knowledge of language learning and teaching, rather than to adopt a specific method or approach at hand. On the other, principled eclecticism can hardly offer specific directions for teachers to follow, so they have to find out for themselves by practical trials.

Theoretically, the typical Chinese learners’ learning styles do not allow Chinese College English teachers to copy the teaching styles of western English teachers. In the mean while, the variety of learning styles within one class of College English students determines that Chinese College English teachers should take a principled eclectic approach in classroom task design, consistently providing a variety of activities to meet the needs of different learning styles.

Practically, the survey has shown that eclecticism and principled eclecticism have been widely accepted and practiced with or without the College English teachers’ awareness of the methodological issues. What is more, the case study has proved principled eclecticism in IELP in College English teaching to be warmly welcomed by the students and fruitful in effect. The underlying principles discovered in the case study were analyzed and they turned out to be so inclusive. The case study has thus revealed that the lectures given by the instructor under study were the product of the instructor’s experience and intuition which were grounded in reasonably sound theoretical principles of learning and teaching.

2. Limitations of the study
Hard as the researcher has tried, the extensive survey in this study covers only a small portion of the universities in China and the number of the participants in each university differs greatly from thirty participants to as few as one participants. Besides, 71% of the teacher participants are young with no more than four years teaching experience. If it were an authority-supported research project, and there were more researchers involved, more College English teachers from a majority of universities could take part in the survey and the field observation could cover more teachers and more classes instead of just one teacher and fifty-one students, and data thus collected would be more representative and the consequent descriptive analysis and research findings would be more convincing. In addition, among the teacher questionnaire participants, there might be some who did not fully understand certain points in the questionnaire but had nobody to refer to. There should always have been someone explaining the meaning of each question, especially the methodological terms.

3. Implications of the study
The outcome of this research includes both theoretical and practical implications. The theoretical implication relates to the usefulness and limitation of the theories that have been put forward and summarized. The case study has shown that scholars’ summarization of theories benefit language teaching to a large extent, but it does not meet all the needs of the real life practice. There are more to discover and put on trial especially in terms of what techniques to apply in what circumstances. More case studies of the foreign language teaching methodology in all kinds of foreign language teaching and learning classrooms at all levels will be expected in the near future, especially the study of typical successful cases, so as to provide more specific principles for teachers to refer to.

The practical implication relates to the practice of College English teaching in China. College English teachers should read more about theoretical principles of language learning and teaching and adapt what they find useful to their own teaching and learning procedure and thus continually better their teaching effect.

References
Brown, H. D. (1994b). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.

Chen, W. (2001). On eclecticism in foreign language teaching. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Sichuan University, China.

Ikpia, V. I. (2001). The attitude and perceptions of adult English as a second language students towards explicit grammar instruction. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico.

Johnson, K., & Johnson H. (1998, 1999). Encyclopedic dictionary of applied linguistics: A handbook for language teaching. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching. (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Marton, W. (1988). Methods in English language teaching: Frameworks and options. Cambridge: Prentice Hall International Ltd.

Mellow, J. D. (2000). Western influence on indigenous language teaching. Retrieved September 11, 2004, from http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jar/LIB/LIB9.html

Mellow, J. D. (2002). Towards principled eclecticism in language teaching: The two-dimensional model and the centering principle. TESL-EJ, 5(4) A-1. Retrieved September 11, 2004, from http://tesl-ej.org/ej20/a1.html

Noonan, F. J. (2004). Teaching ESL students to "notice" grammar. The Internet TESL Journal, 10 (7). Retrieved May 2, 2005, from http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Noonan-Noticing.html

Rao, Z. (2001). Matching teaching styles with learning styles in East Asian Contexts. The Internet TESL Journal. 7(7). Retrieved April 5, 2005, from http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Zhenhui-TeachingStyles.html

Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (1986). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Language teaching methodology. Digest, (9). Retrieved May 12, 2005, from http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/rodgers.html

Shu, B., & Chen Y. (1999). Foreign language teaching methodology. Beijing: Higher Education Press.

Stern, H.H. (1983). Fundamental concepts of language teaching, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Stern, H. H. (1992). Issues and options in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Widdowson, H. G. (1990). Aspects of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wang, D. (Eds.). (2004). College English curriculum requirements (for trial implementation). Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.

戴忠信. (2002). “论外语教学研究中的折衷主义思想”. 教育探索, 12 (138), 62-64. [Dai, Z. X. (2002). Eclecticism in the study of foreign languages teaching and learning. Education Exploration, 12(138), 62-64.]

董淑铭. (2003). “折中教学法在精读教学中的应用”. 重庆交通学院学报, 12, 68-69. [Dong, S. M. (2003). Applying the eclectic approach to intensive reading teaching and learning. Journal of Chongqing Jiaotong University, 12, 68-69.]

樊长荣. (1999). “外语教学中的折中主义”. 外语教学与研究, 2, 29-34. [Fan, C. R. (1999). Eclecticism in foreign languages teaching and learning. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 2, 29-34.]

李凤琴. (1998). “折衷教学法在公共英语教学中的实施”. 河东学刊, 10, 76-78. [Li, F. Q. (1998). The application of the eclectic approach to English teaching and learning with non-major students. He Dong Journal, 10, 76-78.]

饶振辉. (2000). “论兼收并容，折衷诸法的必要性和可行性”. 外语与外语教学, 8, 39-41. [Rao, Z. H. (2000). The necessity and feasibility of adopting the eclectic way. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, 8, 39-41.]

沈菊芳. (2001). “关于当前大学英语教学法的思考”. 浙江海洋学院学报, 12, 65-68. [Shen, J. F. (2001). Reflection on current college English teaching methodology. Journal of Zhejiang Ocean University, 12, 65-68.]

汪斌斌，黄中习. (2003). “论外语教学的折中教学法”. 辽宁工学院学报, 4, 54-55. [Wang, B. B. & Huang Z. X. (2003). A study of ETA in foreign language teaching. Journal of Liaoning Institute of Technology, 4, 54-55.]

王岩. (2001). “折衷主义的外语教学”. 外语界, 2, 25-28. [Wang, Y. (2001). Eclecticism in foreign language teaching. Foreign Language World, 2, 25-28.]

徐丽萍. (2002). “折衷法教学诌议”. 抚州师专学报, 3, 99-101. [Xu, L. P. (2002). On an eclectic approach teaching. Journal of Fuzhou Teachers College, 3, 99-101.]

杨卫中. (1997). “折衷法与英语教学”. 贵阳师专学报, 4, 65-70. [Yang, W. Z. (1997). Eclecticism and English language teaching. Journal of Guiyang Teacher’s College, 4, 65-70.]

张全，陈金平. (2003). “折中教学法与大学英语教学”. 曲靖师范学院学报, 6: 72-74. [Zhang, Q. & Chen J. P. (2003). Eclectic approach and college English teaching. Journal of Qujing Teachers College, 6, 72-74.]

Appendix 1.  A Questionnaire of College English Classroom Teaching (for College English Teachers)

This questionnaire aims to investigate your Beliefs, principles, Methods or Approaches, and techniques in your own College English Classroom Teaching. Your effort is sincerely appreciated.

Affiliation:                              E-mail:                            Tel:
Degree：a. Bachelor   b. Master    c. Doctor
Academic title:    a. Teaching Assistant   b. Instructor     c. Associate Professor    d. Professor
Length of service as a College English teacher:
a. less than 1 year   b. 1-2 years   c. 3-4 years   d. 5-9 years   e. 10-19 years   f. more than 20 years
Your present students:  a. Freshmen   b. Sophomores    c. Juniors and Seniors   d. Graduates

Please tick“√”whichever you have heard of before and you may write down whatever else on the following line: