Deductive vs. Inductive Grammar Teaching
THE EFFECTS OF DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE APPROACHES OF TEACHING ON JORDANIAN UNIVERSITY STUDENTS' USE OF THE
ACTIVE AND PASSIVE VOICE IN ENGLISH
By: Mohammed, Azmi Adel, Jaber, Hanna Abu, College Student Journal, 01463934, Jun2008 Part B, Vol. 42, Issue 2. Database: Academic Search Premier
1.Related Literature
This empirical study presented the description of two teaching methods called "deductive" and "inductive" approaches. The first involved providing a group of participants with rules and then examples directly and separately, but the second approach involves providing another group of participants with examples or content without offering explicit grammar rules, and so the students should induce such rules by themselves. This study investigated the effects of each approach and the interaction between "the type of teaching approach" and "the use of the active and passive voice sentences" in English as a foreign language (EFL). Ninety-three freshman and junior university students participated in this study. They were chosen randomly from three classes in two universities in Jordan. The method of the study included a pretest, two lessons for each group in the three classes and a posttest. The results of the study reveal a significant statistical result at the level of 0.05 between the two approaches for the deductive group. But there is no significant difference between classes for the same type of approach. There is also no significant effect for the interaction between approach and class.
1.1 The Importance of Teaching Grammar
English is today the world's most widely used language. The desire to learn it is at the present is so immense. The future of English as an international language has always been said to rest on the practicability of teaching the language. For more than 2000 years of debate regarding whether grammar should be a primary focus of language instruction or should be eliminated entirely, or should be subordinated to meaning-focused use of the target language is continuing in the tradition. But once again, the need for grammar instruction is attracting the attention of researchers and teachers of second language acquisition. A debate was theoretically represented by Krashen's (1981) distinction between conscious learning and unconscious acquisition of language. The claim was that language should be acquired through natural exposure, not learned through formal instruction (Ellis, 2002; Skehan, 1998). Despite such research findings, Nassaji and Fotos (2004) indicate that current research in second language learning, however, has led to a reconsideration of the role of grammar in second language classroom. The research suggests that some types of focus on grammatical forms were necessary if learners were to develop high levels of accuracy in the target language.
Most second language investigators agree that noticing or awareness of target structures and forms plays an essential role in second language learning was necessary if learners were to develop high levels of accuracy in the target language (Doughty, 2001; Ellis, 2002). Briefly, the reconsideration of grammar teaching in second language classroom, according to many researchers and investigators, is evidence for the positive effects of grammar instruction as their empirical and classroom based studies.
1.2 The Deductive Approach of Teaching
The deductive approach of teaching English grammar refers to the style of teaching students by introducing the grammatical rules first, and then applying them by the students. This means that a teacher works from the more general to the more specific in a deductive approach called informally a "top down" approach. Decoo (1996) understands education as a process that goes from the general to the specific. Whereas Mountone (2004) states that the deductive methods seem to work best if you want students to be able to quickly and accurately solve problems like those worked out in class or in the work. Younie (1974) believes that the deductive approach is more predictable because the teacher selects the information and the sequence of presentation.
Shaffer (1989) criticizes the deductive approach clarifying that the problem many students have applying these various rules indicates that they may not fully understand the concepts involved and that the deductive approach tends to emphasize grammar at the expense of meaning and to promote passive rather than active participation of the students. But Goner et al (1978) state that the deductive approach can be effective with students of a higher level, who already know the basic structures of the language, or with students who are accustomed to a very traditional style of learning." Schrampfer and Spack (2005) introduce a program where the presentation-practice-production-evaluation pattern adopted by the program is a feature of the deductive approach to the teaching grammar assuming that potential users will understand the rule governing the target grammar pattern.
1.3 The Inductive Approach of Teaching
The inductive approach refers to the style of introducing language context containing the target rules where students can induce such rules through the context and practical examples. In other words, the sequence in this approach goes from creating a situation and giving examples to the generalization where students should discover such generalization by themselves or with the teacher's help. Mautone (2004) says that with an inductive approach, teachers show their students a series of examples and non-examples, and then guide them toward noticing a pattern and coming up with the generalization or concept rule.
Some scholars such as Ausubel (1963) and Carroll (1964) indicated that the inductive approach was too difficult for weaker or slower students, and that only brighter students were capable of discovering the underlying patterns of a structure, but the results of Shaffer's research (1989) indicate that weaker students do benefit from an inductive approach.
Among several studies supporting the idea that the inductive approach has proved its success in achieving students' retention or memory and deep understanding, Younie's (1974) states that students tend to remember when learning occurs inductively. Some teachers support such ideas and believe that engaging with the meaning of forms and words through an inductive approach leads to better understanding and retention. Bluedorn (1989), and Shaffer (1989) view that it has been very successful in teaching adults conversational ability with modern foreign languages, but not with classical languages. No doubt, we agree with those researchers and teachers who focus on the importance of student’s involvement, which may come through the inductive approach of teaching. We also share them the idea that students should depend upon their mental ability and prior information as this approach may sometimes represent a kind of challenge for learners.
1.4 Comparison: the Deductive and Inductive Approaches
Teacher' approaches of teaching English grammar play an important role in classrooms where students should understand what they are taught and how to use it correctly. Here, we are interested in the deductive and inductive approaches. This interest leads us to review some previous studies which compared between the two of them, or focused on their advantages and disadvantages.
In comparing between the two approaches, one of the differences is that a deductive approach is most close with the grammar-translation method of teaching languages, while an inductive approach is considered close to audio-lingualism, where meaning and grammar induced from practice with examples in situations and substitution tables (Gollin, 1998). According to Shaffer (1989) an inductive approach was formerly always equated with the audio-lingual method of the sixties, defined as habit-formation unless the teacher gave the students at the end of the lesson the appropriate rule.
The second main difference between these two approaches is regarding the steps or procedures of each one. Whereas the deductive approach begins with the step of introducing rules or principles, the inductive approach begins with language context involving application of such rules. In the deductive sequence, ideas proceed from generalizations, principles, rules, laws, propositions, or theories to specific applications. The deductive sequence involves presenting generalization and then seeking or providing examples as Younie (1974) states.
The third difference is related to what is explicit and implicit of knowledge or grammar through the teaching-learning process. Donate and Adair-Hauck (1992) relate between deductive approach and explicit explanations by the teacher, and also between modalities of inductive approaches and implicit learning by the student. In a comparison of explicit and implicit teaching strategies, Chaudron (1988) points at the large number of product-studies that have investigated the effects of explicit versus implicit grammar instruction on achievement calling the implicit approach "pattern practice or inductive". In a follow-up study, however, Scott (1990) defines the explicit strategy as the " deliberate study of a grammar rule, either by deductive analysis or inductive analogy."
Littlewood's (1975) viewpoint is that the approach that makes the grammar explicit is one of these two ways: 1) when the rule is regarded as a summary of behavior, which comes after presenting a piece of language, and may be after practicing it for a time. 2) when "command of the rule through explanation is regarded as the starting-point for language use", but "it does not exclude using inductive classroom techniques", which means that the grammar explicit can come through the two approaches.
Age is the fourth difference or controversial issue discussed by scholars. Rivers (1975) finds the use of the deductive approach most useful for mature, well-motivated student, or for adult student in intensive courses, and finds the inductive approach more appropriate for young language learners. In fact, we don't know the exact ages suggested by Rivers who recommends using age as a factor of choice between the two approaches.
But time is the fifth difference, which distinguishes between the two approaches. Younie (1974) hypothesizes that the deductive approach is faster and can be an efficient way to teach large numbers of facts and concretes. We agree with Younie that "the deductive approach sticks directly to the point, and so it saves time." In other words, explaining the offered rules or generalizations takes less time than leaving them to be elicited by the learners themselves. Therefore, the learners have more time for practice or application.
The sixth different factor between the deductive and the inductive approaches is student involvement. It is available when teaching inductively but passive rather active when teaching deductively (Shaffer 1989). This conclusion is also given by other researchers or teachers who see that in the deductive approach the teacher explanation in a classroom often minimizes student involvement and interaction. But in the inductive approach students are more actively involved in the learning process, rather than simply passive recipients.
The seventh difference or controversial factor is related to the terms "easy" or simple and "difficult" or complex. The similarity and dissimilarity between the rules in the first language and the rules in the foreign language should be taken into consideration Traditionally, deductive approach is used to teach grammar because it is easy to control, and efficient, but it becomes boring when used repeatedly. Inductive approach, on the other hand, is rather demanding and rewarding, but it needs more time and more effort to control. Fischer (1979) comes to the criteria that if the foreign language grammar rule is simpler than the native language rule, then an inductive approach is the most appropriate; if the foreign language of equal or greater complexity than the native language rule, a deductive approach is to be preferred.
2. Methodology
It is noticed that teachers of English as a foreign language (EFL) often tend to use a deductive approach in teaching parts of speech or grammatical structures, that is, by presenting rules before giving examples. But those who want their students to be creative through their deep thinking tend to use an inductive approach, that is, by presenting examples and asking the students to induce rules by themselves. We, as teachers of EFL as well as researchers, tend to use both approaches eclectically according to content or goals or situation.
2.1 Questions of the Study
This empirical study focuses on the effects of the deductive and inductive approaches of teaching the passive and the active voice for university students as learners of EFL. The deductive approach is based on providing the learners with rules and explanation with examples. But the inductive approach is based on giving examples without providing the learners with rules where they should induce such rules by themselves. The questions of this study are as follows:
A. Is there a significant difference between the results of the students taught the active and the passive voice by the deductive approach and those taught by the inductive approach?
B. Is there a significant difference between the results of the classes taught the active and the passive voice by the deductive approach?
C. Is there a significant difference between the results of the classes taught the active and the passive voice by the inductive approach?
2.2 Participants
This study was conducted in two universities in Jordan: Al-Balqa' Applied University and Jerash Private University. Three classes (sections) of students shared in the study. Two classes from Amman Faculty of Engineering Technology in the first university and one class from the Faculty of Arts (English Department) in the second university. The first class consists of freshman students studying English skills 99 (Elementary English Course); the second class consists of junior students studying English skills 102 (Intermediate English course); and the third class consists of freshman students studying English skills 101 (Pre-intermediate English course). All the students of the three classes studied the active and the passive voice during the secondary stage when they were secondary students.
The students of each class were divided randomly into two groups: one group was taught the passive and the active voice by "deductive approach" and the other group by "inductive approach", so we call them "deductive group" and "inductive group". Those who were taught deductively were exposed to specific grammatical rules where they paid conscious attention to language so as to understand such rules. But those who were taught inductively were given examples without being exposed to such rules. Instead, they were left to induce the rules by themselves.
All together, ninety-three students from the three classes in the two Jordanian universities participated. The three classes were divided randomly into six groups. The age of the students ranged from eighteen to twenty. Two teachers who are the researchers of this study participated in the study. It should be noticed that two students didn't perform the posttest, and so they were not involved in the results.
3.Testing
A pre-test was used as a means of feasible evaluation. The participants completed the pretest a few days before being taught two lessons about the active and the passive voice. One group was taught deductively, and the other group inductively. A posttest was completed by the participants about one week after the instructional lessons. All the pretest and posttest exams completed by the three classes took place during timetabled university lecture hours. The version used as a pretest or as a posttest consisted of two main questions: the first was a multiple-choice question where the participants answered twenty items by circling a, b, c or d that represents the best answer (distracter) and the second consisted of twenty items and was about changing the active voice sentences into the passive voice wherever possible. The full mark for the first question was 40 marks whereas it was 60 marks for the second question.
4.Conclusion and Discussion
The statistical results of this study showed that students in the deductive group made significant better gains than those in the inductive group on the use of the passive and the active voice. These results came to support Ausubel (1974) and Carrol (1964) whose idea is that since adults are endowed with a cognitive network enabling them to understand abstract concepts, teachers should speed up the language acquisition
by giving the learners explicit rules in a deductive learning framework. Similar results were given by Erlam (2003) revealing a significant advantage for the deductive instruction group. The study highlighted the difficulty of designing language measures that access implicit language knowledge.
The results which showed a greater effect for deductive than for inductive instruction made this study in contrast to ideas in papers for researchers such as Dulay and Burt (1973) and Krashen (1980) who believed that teachers could provide their students with comprehensive input without a need for explicit rules. We noticed that the deductive approach groups showed that they were able to apply the rules immediately after given written questions and their answers were approximately accurate whereas the inductive approach group needed more time to answer the questions during the lessons.
It may be argued that students are not involved enough when a deductive approach is used, but this is up to the teachers who can make their involvement more through discussing exercises with the class, giving them enough time to think deeply before choosing the most appropriate answer. This minimizes the role of the teacher, which is well-known as the center of the class when the traditional deductive approach is used. The conclusion of the study makes us agree with the hypothesis saying that when teaching grammar for the sake of grammar, the deductive approach helps more than the inductive approach. We can also claim that writing all the rules on the board, giving the model answers of the exercises and discussing the differences and similarities with the class led to successful lesson taught deductively.
This study proposes both approaches can be used in the teaching-learning processes, but before teaching the active and passive voice, it seemed that the deductive approach was more appropriate because the nature of the content is based on the grammatical rules of the active and the passive voice. But in other cases, particularly, when the teaching-learning process of grammar is complex some improvements might be needed, such as introducing concepts using a combination of both deductive and inductive approaches and reviewing patterns so as to avoid an entirely linear presentation (Schrampfer and Spack, 2005). Regarding the problem that applying rules indicates that students may not in fact fully understand the concepts involved where the deductive approach tends to emphasize grammar at the expense of meaning and to promote passive rather than active participation (Shaffer), we were able to solve such a problem by asking the students questions related to the meaning of active and passive sentences and why or when should we use one of them and not the other so as to keep the better meaning.
Among other reasons behind getting higher marks by the deductive group is that the deductive group were able to get more feedback when comparing their answers with the teachers model answers on one hand and with the given rules on the other hand. We agree with Bluedorn, (1998) that the deductive method is effective to the degree it is clear, comprehensive and digestible, and Rivers (1975), who finds the use of the deductive approach most useful for mature, well-motivated students, or for adult students in intensive courses.
茶叶采摘技术
湖南农业大学课程论文 学院：园艺园林班级：09级茶学2班姓名：陶珊珊学号：200941736205 课程论文题目：茶叶采摘技术 课程名称：茶树栽培育种学 评阅成绩： 评阅意见： 成绩评定教师签名： 日期：年月日
茶叶采摘技术 学生：陶珊珊 园艺园林学院09级茶学二班学号 200941736205 摘要：茶叶采摘技术是茶树栽培技术中的重要环节，既是茶树收货过程，也是促进茶树生长发育、培养树冠、增加产量、提高品质的有效措施。采摘的方法、标准、技术是掌握茶叶采摘技术、提高茶叶质量及培育丰产茶园的关键。 关键词：合理采摘时期标准方法技术 长期的生产实践和科学试验已经证明，茶叶采摘与茶树的生长发育有着密切的关系。茶树是一种多年生的常绿叶用作物，采收的芽叶即茶树的新稍，既是制茶的原料，亦是茶树的重要营养器官。新稍上成熟的叶子是茶树进行光合作用和呼吸作用的场所。茶树新稍具有顶端生长优势和在年生长发育周期中多次萌发生长的特性。茶树新稍由顶芽和侧芽萌发生长发育而成。顶芽和侧芽所处的位置和发育迟早的不同，在生长发育上有着相互制约的关系，顶芽最先萌发，生长也最快，占有优势地位。但顶芽的旺盛生长，抑制了侧芽的生长，使侧芽萌动推迟，生长减慢，甚至呈潜伏状态。所以在自然生长情况下，新稍每年只能重复生长2到3次，分枝少，树冠稀。而人为的采摘，可解除其顶端优势，促进侧芽不断萌发，使生长加快，新稍生长轮次增多以及萌芽密度增加。但茶叶采摘不能过度，否则茶树上叶子太少，会对光合作用产生影响，不利于有机物的形成和积累，从而影响茶树的生长发育。[1]采茶和养树的矛盾，数量与质量的矛盾，使得茶叶采摘与一般的大田作物的收货相比，要复杂的多。要正确处理好这两对矛盾，尽可能使其科学合理。通过采摘技术，抑制茶树生殖生长，促进茶树营养生长，协调好采叶与留养、数量与质量之间的矛盾，达到茶叶优质高产稳产高效的目的。[2]一、合理采摘 因采期不同、采法不同，获得的芽叶征状和性质不同，并影响到当时茶树或后期的产量和品质，所以合理采摘尤为重要。合理采摘是60年代以来总结归纳、研究提高的一个科学概念。过去茶叶生产中由于采摘不当产生的不良影响，主要有幼年茶树采摘过度，茶树未老先衰，青壮年茶树不注意采养结合，覆盖度不大，单产不高；老茶树一直强采至鱼叶，长期处于衰老状态等。[10]60年代以后，各地在深入认识茶树生长发育基本规律和加强水、肥、剪等管理基础上，进行不同
茶叶的采摘方法与技巧
茶叶采摘好坏，不仅关系到茶叶质量、产量和经济效益，而且还关系到茶树的生长发育和经济寿命的长短，所以，在茶叶生产过程中，茶叶采摘具有特别重要的意义。 茶叶采摘，其方法主要有两种，即手工采茶和机械采茶。 ⑴手工采茶这是传统的茶树采摘方法。采茶时，要实行提手采，分朵采，切忌一把捋。这种采摘方法，它的最大优点是标准划一，容易掌握。缺点是费工，成本高，难以做到及时采摘。但目前细嫩名优茶的采摘，由于采摘标准要求高，还不能实行机械采茶，仍用手工采茶。 ⑵机械采茶目前多采用双人抬往返切割式采茶机采茶。如果操作熟练，肥水管理跟上，机械采茶对茶树生长发育和茶叶产量、质量并无影响，而且还能减少采茶劳动力，降低生产成本，提高经济效益。因此，近年来，机械采茶愈来愈受到茶农的青睐，机采茶园的面积一年比一年扩大。 2、采摘标准 茶叶采摘标准，主要是根据茶类对新梢嫩度与品质的要求和产量因素进行确定的，最终是力求取得最高的经济效益。 中国茶类丰富多彩，品质特征各具一格。因此，对茶叶采摘标准的要求，差异很大，归纳起来，大致可分为四种情况。 ⑴细嫩采采用这种采摘标准采制的茶叶，主要用来制作高级名茶。如高级西湖龙井、洞庭碧螺春、君山银针、黄山毛峰、庐山云雾等，对鲜叶嫩度要求很高，一般是采摘茶芽和一芽一叶，以及一芽二叶初展的新梢。前人称采“麦颗”、“旗枪”、“莲心”茶，指的就是这个意思。这种采摘标准，花工夫，产量不多，季节性强，大多在春茶前期采摘。 ⑵适中采采用这种采摘标准采制的茶叶，主要用来制作大宗茶类。如内销和外销的眉茶、珠茶、工夫红茶、红碎茶等，要求鲜叶嫩度适中，一般以采一芽二叶为主，兼采一芽三叶和幼嫩的对夹叶。这种采摘标准，茶叶品质较好，产量也较高，经济效益也不差，是中国目前采用最普遍的采摘标准。 ⑶成熟采采用这种采摘标准采割的茶叶，主要用来制作边销茶。它为了适应边疆兄弟民族的特殊需要，茯砖茶原料采摘标准需等到新梢快顶芽停止生长，下部基本成熟时，采去一芽四、五叶和对夹三、四叶。南路边茶为适应藏族同胞熬煮掺和酥油的特殊饮茶习惯，要求滋味醇和，回味甘润，所以，采摘标准需待新梢成熟，下部老化时才用刀割去新枝基部一、
茶叶的采摘技术
茶叶的采摘技术 合理采摘是茶叶获得稳产、高产、优质的重要措施之一。合理采茶就是要根据茶树品种、气候条件、树龄、生长势及不同肥水水平等因素，结合市场需求采摘茶叶，采茶和留养结合，既收茶叶，又能保证茶树正常生长，达到持续高产优质的目的。
幼龄茶树的采摘 在正常肥水管理条件下，经过两次定型修剪后幼龄茶树，在春茶后期树高可达45厘米以上，经过第三次定型修剪，茶树高达60厘米左右，均可采用“打顶留叶”的方法采荼。其采留标准是春茶留二、三叶，采一芽一、二叶；夏茶留二叶，采一芽一二叶；秋茶留一叶，采―芽一、二叶。在幼龄茶树采摘过程中应注意“采顶养边、采高养低、采密养稀”的原则。经过三次定型修剪和打顶留叶采摘后的幼龄茶树，在树高达60～80厘米，树幅达130厘米左右时，即可用成年树采摘措施管理。
成年茶树的采摘 成年茶树应坚持“以采为主、采留结合、及时开采”的原则，才有可能在较长时间内获得较高的经济效益。春茶采名优茶原料，多为单芽，一芽一叶初展或一芽一叶展，如有5%达到开采标准时即可采茶。采名茶要求原料细嫩匀整，一般采摘一芽一叶初展、一芽一叶展或采单芽。大宗红条茶、绿茶、红碎茶要求原料为中等嫩度，一般以采一芽二、三叶为主及采嫩的对夹叶。打油茶和六堡茶则要求采基本成熟的新梢和对夹二至三叶。一般可采用“全年留鱼叶”或“春、夏茶留鱼叶，秋茶留一叶，及时、分批、按标准采留”的方法采茶。
机械采茶 近年来，在我国大型茶场推广试用的采茶机，有双人担架式、机动型、螺旋滚刀切割式采，茶机及水平旋转刀切割式采茶机两种。这两种采茶机的采摘质量好，操作方便，能适应各种地形的茶园作业，比手工采茶提高工效约10倍。在试用推广采茶机采茶的茶园，其肥培措施也需适当加强。
茶叶的采摘与制作
五、茶叶的采摘与制作 1、茶叶的采摘 茶树的新梢生长到可以采收的标准时，即可及时采取，采下的芽叶为制茶的原料。 茶树通过适当的采摘，可以不断减慢新梢顶端的生长势头，促进侧芽萌发，形成更多的新梢，延长茶树的经济生产期，增加产量，且能提高成茶品质。 茶叶萌芽分为早生、中生、晚生三大类。视各地气候环境，早生种一般在2月下旬萌芽，3月下旬开始采摘；中、晚生种则各依次延迟约十几日。 中国大部分茶区，对茶树合理采摘是按“标准、及时、分批、留叶采”的规则来进行的。不同茶类对原料茶叶要求有不同的采摘标准，要根据生产实际和市场需求来制订。 目前我国大宗红、绿茶的采摘标准，是质量兼顾，以收益最高为依据，一般采一芽二叶、一芽三叶和柔嫩的对夹叶。 乌龙茶的采摘标准，须等新梢生长近成熟，叶片开度达八九成时，采下带驻芽的二三片嫩叶。 名贵茶类的采摘标准，要求原料细嫩匀净，只采初萌的壮芽或初展的一芽一二叶。 边梢茶对原料嫩度要求较低，主要采用粗大的叶片，一芽四五叶或对夹三四叶均可。 采摘分人工采摘和机械采摘两种，人工采量比机械少，成本高，价格也较昂贵。然而，人工采茶选择性较大，叶片也较完整；机械采茶成本较低，但是茶叶无选择性，茶梗、老叶、嫩叶混合在一起。由于成本的不同，售价也不同。人工
采茶用手折还是用小刀切，制作出来的茶的品质是有些差异的，大量制作茶叶时，采用机械比较能稳定茶叶的质量。茶叶产量的高低，品质的优劣，一定程度上是由采摘决定的。所以，合理、科学地采摘是茶叶生产的重要环节。 2、茶叶的制作 炒茶的工艺较复杂。从茶树采下来的鲜叶，静置多长时间开始炒，是茶叶变化的关键，并由此而制造产生出三大系列茶叶，即不发酵茶、半发酵茶和全发酵茶。 鲜叶即刻炒定干燥后制成的茶叶，称为不发酵茶。由于不发酵而对鲜叶的颜色改变不大，所以是绿茶。 鲜叶经过静置到一定的时间而炒定干燥的茶叶，称为部分发酵茶，或者有人说的半发酵茶。这类茶叶是最复杂的，因为静置时间的长短不同，而有不同程度的变化，从发酵10％～70%都有。因为这类茶属于部分发酵，所有干茶呈现青色，发酵越高青色越深，甚至转为青褐色。总的来说，呈现的颜色是青蛙皮的颜色，因此称为青茶。 如果将鲜茶静置时间长，让它完全“渥红”，即是全发酵茶，做出来的干茶呈暗红色，也就是红茶了。 如今，茶叶的制造大部分是以炒青的方法来固定它的发酵度，绝大部分的茶叶外形属于散茶类。因此，喝茶是以沏泡的方式，喝泡出来的茶汤。煮茶、烹茶或点茶的方法已经很少用了，喝茶的方式不同也影响到茶对人身体的保健功能和药理作用，同时也影响到不同茶文化的发展。 茶叶在现代已经是许多人不可或缺的日常用品。茶叶的名称很多，并不是因为茶树的品种太多，所以不可把茶叶的成品名与原料名混淆。也就是说，这棵茶
茶鲜叶机械化采摘项目规划
茶鲜叶机械化采摘项目规划 1. 项目背景及意义 传统的茶叶生产需要大量的劳动力，劳动力成本约占总生产成本的 80%～90% ，而鲜叶原料的采摘又占据劳动力成本的近 70% 。大宗茶生产中，手工采茶用工量约占茶叶生产用工量的55%左右。在名优茶生产中，由于要求鲜叶原料幼嫩、匀齐，标准严格，茶叶采摘的劳动力投入更高，有些茶区名茶采摘成本占总生产成本的60%多。 茶业属于劳动密集型产业，而随着我国城市化建设步伐加速，同时茶业与其他行业相比，其比较效益近年来有所下降，大批农村劳动力向城市转移，向茶业外的行业转移，靠大量劳动力支撑的茶业生产发展，尤其是名优茶生产发展均因鲜叶原料采摘劳动力不足而受制约，机械化采茶将是解决这一瓶颈问题的希望所在。 2015年，信阳市茶园总面积187万亩，产量2200万公斤。全市783.74万人口，其中茶农约93万，茶叶从业人员近百万。几乎每10个人中就有1人是茶农，每7个人中就有1人是从事茶业工作的。全市拥有茶叶加工企业306个，其中国家级及省级茶叶龙头企业各1个；全市拥有百万资产的茶农30余户，茶园面积超过300亩的种茶大户300个；茶叶集贸市场100余个；茶艺馆、茶楼30多家。
机械采摘能有效的提高采摘效率，相对于手采属于无选择性采摘，采下的鲜叶匀度较差，鲜叶质量不如手采叶。采摘细嫩，芽叶均匀一致是名优绿茶鲜叶的基本要求，鲜叶质量直接影响名优茶的经济效益，如能通过一系列的栽培措施和采后分级处理，使机采鲜叶经处理后能达到不同等级名优茶鲜叶的要求，对名优茶生产具有极大的促进作用。 2. 项目概况 本项目拟通过在浉河区董家河乡、浉河港乡等地建设茶园1万亩，进行统一种植，统一管理，对茶园进行整修，统一进行机械化采摘。项目建设期五年。 3. 项目市场分析 目前国内外普遍采用的采茶机都是针对大宗茶生产时采摘茶树鲜叶用的，其基本原理是利用机械动力带动刀片运动，快速剪切并收集茶树芽叶，从而达到采摘茶叶的目的。日本对采茶机的研究较早，可追溯到 1910 年，从采茶剪的出现算起，至今已近一个世纪的历史。日本上世纪70 年代茶叶机械化采摘基本得到普及；上世纪90年代初期，日本对六个主要产茶县的统计调查显示，春茶机采达80% 左右，夏茶机采高达91% 。其后印度、斯里兰卡、东非等国家和地区相继开始应用推广。 近年来，中国茶产业得到快速发展，产业规模不断扩
茶叶的采摘技术及标准
茶叶的采摘技术及标准 茶树是多年生常绿木本植物，一年中茶树可分若干次采摘，当季采茶对下季的芽叶萌发及其产量，质量有影响，而当年的采摘又会对下一年度甚至更长时间的茶树生长发育及产量、质量产生影响，所以必须高度重视合理科学采茶。 一、采摘原则 1、必须符合采摘标准 各类茶叶品质风格不同，鲜叶的采摘标准也就存在差异，严格按各种茶类的标准采摘，才能保证加工的茶叶产量与品质。从茶树采下来的鲜叶称为茶青，茗皇茶采摘标准一般在中、小开面之间，开采以小开面开采为宜(茶树新梢伸育至最后一叶开张形驻芽后即称开面，第一叶伸展，面积达第二叶1/2为小开面;达2/3者为中开面茶树新梢伸育两叶即开面者称对夹叶)，不宜过老或过嫩。一般采叶标准是：长三叶采二叶，长四叶采三叶，采下对夹叶，不采鱼叶，不采单叶，不带梗蒂。茶青过嫩：成茶易形成苦涩味;茶青过老：香气粗劣、味淡欠醇;中开面茶青：易形成花香、味爽清甘;小开面茶青：香气清锐、浓醇耐泡。 2、采茶与养树两者兼顾 种茶的目的是为了多采摘芽叶，获得更高产量，而芽叶又是茶叶的营养器官。茶叶的采摘具有双重性。 (1)茶树通过芽叶吸收二氧化碳,将从根系吸收的水分在阳光下合
成碳水化合物(糖类)，进而合成蛋白质和脂肪等有机物，以满足茶树生长发育需要。如果过度采摘芽叶，会严重影响茶树的光合作用，不利于有机物的形成和积累，影响茶树的正常生长和发育。 (2)适当的采摘芽叶，又能刺激腋芽(生长在叶腋内的芽，通常每一叶腋处只生1个芽，但也有2个或几个芽同生)抽发，所以茶树有"顶芽不采,侧芽少发的"的说法。要使采摘和养树兼顾，只有在新稍生长发育过程中，按照茶叶生产要求采摘芽叶，在主要生产季节之后的适当时间采取留叶采，保持一定的叶层厚度，满足茶树生长发育的需求。 3、据树龄和树势不同掌握不同采茶方法 采茶是种茶的目的，养树是种茶的手段，留叶是为了更多的采叶。只有根据茶树的树龄和树势不同采取相适应的采摘方法，并与其他栽培措施密切配合，才能收到合理采摘的增产提质效果。一般而言，采摘方法如下： (1)幼龄茶树的采摘应掌握"以养为主，以采为辅，采高留低，多留少采，轻采养篷"的原则，如采用"打顶采"。 (2)成年茶树应掌握“以采为主，采养结合”的原则，采用留部分芽叶采摘法。具体还应根据各地的自然环境、气候季节及栽培条件来决定。通常只采摘90%的芽叶，留下10%。但春夏季雨水充足、茶叶生长迅速，可采摘95%~98%芽叶;秋季多干旱，适当预留多一些芽叶，采80%~85%，冬季则可考虑不采或少量采摘。 (3)老年茶树的采摘留叶必须视树势强弱及衰老程度不同而用不
茶叶采摘标准及技术
茶叶采摘标准及技术 摘要阐述了茶树生育特性对茶叶采摘的影响，介绍了茶叶采摘标准，从采摘时期、采摘方法、鲜叶集叶与贮运等方面总结了茶叶采摘技术，以供参考。 关键词茶叶；采摘标准；采摘技术 种茶是为了采茶，而茶叶采摘的好坏，不仅关系到成品茶的产量和品质，而且还会影响茶树的生长和发育[1-3]。因此，茶叶采摘在整个茶叶生产过程中具有十分重要的意义。 1 茶树生育特性对茶叶采摘的影响 茶树新梢的生长特性，一是顶端优势；二是多次萌发生长。茶树上常年是否留有适量的叶片，往往是衡量树势强弱和分析茶园产量高低的一个重要依据，合理采摘就是在认识茶树叶片生长规律的基础上，既要及时分批采摘符合制茶要求的鲜叶原料，又要适时适量地留养一定的当年新生叶片，以维持茶树正常生命活动和再生产的需要。茶树地上部与地下部生长的相关性，两者互相促进又相互制约，合理采茶就要通过人为手段。利用采摘不断打破两者相对的平衡关系，促进地上部新梢的生长，达到茶叶优质高产。新梢发育程度与茶叶品质，如果结合茶叶产量与品质综合考虑，目前生产中采用比较多的新梢长到1芽3～4叶，采去1芽2～3叶为宜。 2 茶叶采摘标准 一是高级名茶细嫩采。一般采摘1芽1叶或1芽1叶初展，有的甚至采1个茶芽，大多在春茶前采，对芽叶嫩度要求较高，花工大，产量不多。二是大宗茶适中采。一般以采1芽2叶为主，兼采1芽3叶和幼嫩的驻芽，要求芽叶嫩度适中，产量较高，品质较好。三是特种茶类开面采。当新梢长到3～5叶快成熟，而顶芽则成驻芽，上部第1片叶6～7成开面时采下驻芽2～4叶较适宜（称开面采），采驻芽2～3叶中开面采新梢最适制乌龙茶。四是边销茶类成熟采。边销茶主要是为边疆兄弟民族的特殊需要而加工的，需要到新梢成熟，枝条基部已木质化时才刈下当年新梢基部1～2片叶以上的全部枝梢，只要肥培管理较好，时间掌握适宜，可先采摘1～2批细芽后再进行刈下当年新梢的做法，这样对提高茶叶经济利用价值有利[4-5]。 3 茶叶采摘时期 3.1 开采期 在手工采的情况下，一般大宗红绿茶，当春茶新梢在树冠上有10%～15%达到采摘标准，夏秋茶有10%达到采摘标准时就要开采。采摘细嫩的名茶，一般当春茶有5%达到采摘标准时就要开采。
茶叶采摘应注意事项
茶叶采摘应注意事项 茶叶采摘好坏，不仅关系到茶叶质量、产量和经济效益，而且还关系到茶树的生长发育和经济寿命的长短，所以，在茶叶生产过程中，茶叶采摘具有特别重要的意义。 1、采摘方法 茶叶采摘，其方法主要有两种，即手工采茶和机械采茶。 ⑴手工采茶这是传统的茶树采摘方法。采茶时，要实行提手采，分朵采，切忌一把捋。这种采摘方法，它的最大优点是标准划一，容易掌握。缺点是费工，成本高，难以做到及时采摘。但目前细嫩名优茶的采摘，由于采摘标准要求高，还不能实行机械采茶，仍用手工采茶。 ⑵机械采茶目前多采用双人抬往返切割式采茶机采茶。如果操作熟练，肥水管理跟上，机械采茶对茶树生长发育和茶叶产量、质量并无影响，而且还能减少采茶劳动力，降低生产成本，提高经济效益。因此，近年来，机械采茶愈来愈受到茶农的青睐，机采茶园的面积一年比一年扩大。 2、采摘标准 茶叶采摘标准，主要是根据茶类对新梢嫩度与品质的要求和产量因素进行确定的，最终是力求取得最高的经济效益。
中国茶类丰富多彩，品质特征各具一格。因此，对茶叶采摘标准的要求，差异很大，归纳起来，大致可分为四种情况。 ⑴细嫩采采用这种采摘标准采制的茶叶，主要用来制作高级名茶。如高级西湖龙井、洞庭碧螺春、君山银针、黄山毛峰、庐山云雾等，对鲜叶嫩度要求很高，一般是采摘茶芽和一芽一叶，以及一芽二叶初展的新梢。前人称采“麦颗”、“旗枪”、“莲心”茶，指的就是这个意思。这种采摘标准，花工夫，产量不多，季节性强，大多在春茶前期采摘。 ⑵适中采采用这种采摘标准采制的茶叶，主要用来制作大宗茶类。如内销和外销的眉茶、珠茶、工夫红茶、红碎茶等，要求鲜叶嫩度适中，一般以采一芽二叶为主，兼采一芽三叶和幼嫩的对夹叶。这种采摘标准，茶叶品质较好，产量也较高，经济效益也不差，是中国目前采用最普遍的采摘标准。⑶成熟采采用这种采摘标准采割的茶叶，主要用来制作边销茶。它为了适应边疆兄弟民族的特殊需要，茯砖茶原料采摘标准需等到新梢快顶芽停止生长，下部基本成熟时，采去一芽四、五叶和对夹三、四叶。南路边茶为适应藏族同胞熬煮掺和酥油的特殊饮茶习惯，要求滋味醇和，回味甘润，所以，采摘标准需待新梢成熟，下部老化时才用刀割去新枝基部一、二片成叶以上全部枝梢。这种采摘方法,采摘批次少，化工并不多。茶树投产后，前期产量较高，但由于对茶树生
茶叶的采摘技术
茶叶的采摘技术 茶树是多年生常绿木本植物，一年中茶树可分若干次采摘，当季采茶对下季的芽叶萌发及其产量、质量有影响，而当年的采摘又会对下一年度甚至更长时间的茶树生长发育及产量、质量产生影响，所以必须高度重视合理采茶。 一、合理采摘应掌握的原则 1、采摘的鲜叶符合茶叶加工要求各类茶叶品质风格不同，鲜叶的采摘标准也就存在差异，严格按各种茶类的标准采摘，才能保证加工的茶叶产量与品质。如高档名茶中大多数的采摘要求为一芽一叶初展，或一芽二叶初展；安化松针、安化银毫要求鲜叶是一芽一叶；普通炒青绿茶要求是一芽二、三叶；而黑茶原料较为粗老，但随着消费群体的变化，对鲜叶嫩度也有提高。 2、采茶与养树两者兼顾种茶的目的是为了多采摘芽叶，获得更高产量，而芽叶又是茶叶的营养器官。茶叶的采摘具有双重性。一方面，茶树通过芽叶吸收二氧化碳，将从根系吸收的水分在阳光下合成碳水化合物(糖类)，进而合成蛋白质和脂肪等有机物，以满足茶树生长发育需要。如果过度采摘芽叶，会严重影响茶树的光合作用，不利于有机物的形成和积累，影响茶树的正常生长和发育。另一方面，适当的采摘芽叶，又能刺激腋芽(生长在叶腋内的芽，通常每一叶腋处只生1个芽，但也有2个或几个芽同生)抽发，所以茶树有“顶芽不采，侧芽少发的”的说法。要使采摘和养树兼顾，只有在新稍生长发育过程中，按照茶叶生产要求采摘芽叶，在主要生产季节之后的适
当时间采取留叶采，保持一定的叶层厚度，满足茶树生长发育的需求。 3、据树龄和树势不同掌握不同采茶方法采茶是种茶的目的，养树是种茶的手段，留叶是为了更多的采叶。只有根据茶树的树龄和树势不同采取相适应的采摘方法，并与其他栽培措施密切配合，才能收到合理采摘的增产提质效果。一般而言，幼龄茶树的采摘应掌握“以养为主，以采为辅，采高留低，多留少采，轻采养篷”的原则，如采用“打顶采”。成年茶树应掌握“以采为主，采养结合”的原则，采用留一叶或留鱼叶相结合的采摘法。具体还应根据各地的自然环境及栽培条件来决定。通常是春秋留鱼叶，夏留1片真叶或前秋留1片真叶，或全年留鱼叶，在每季末期酌情留1-2片叶的方法。老年茶树的采摘留叶必须视树势强弱及衰老程度不同而用不同的采茶方法。对于生理机理衰退、光合作用减弱、育芽力降低、芽叶瘦小、对夹叶大量出现的老年茶树，在采摘时要酌情多留叶；树势好的一般可按成年茶树的采法进行。树势较老的可采取集中留养的采法，即停采一个季节留养，让其恢复生长量后再进行采茶。衰老严重的茶树需要实施重修剪或台刈更新树冠，因为茶树重新抽发生长，开始可按幼年茶树的打顶采法；到第二、三年时少采多留，采用留3叶和留1叶相结合的采摘法；当冠高达70cm以上、篷宽100cm以上时，可用成年茶树的采摘法。 4、及时分批采茶树芽叶的着生部位不同，萌芽次序有先后，为了符合各种茶类加工对鲜叶标准的要求，及时分批采摘非常重要。特别是气温较高的季节更应多次分批勤采，即采摘达到加工标准要求
茶叶采摘与加工技术
茶叶采摘与加工技术 一、茶叶采摘技术 茶叶采摘应与茶树生长情况、气候条件以及经济收益综合考虑。按照标准及时采摘。一般大宗红、绿茶要求采摘一芽二三叶，名茶对鲜叶要求较高，一般要求采摘一芽一叶或一芽二叶初展。开采期宜早不宜迟，以略早为好。一般名优绿茶区，在采用手工分批采摘的情况下，春茶当蓬面有5％~10％的新梢达到采摘标准时，就可开采。夏、秋茶由于新梢萌发不很整齐，茶季较长，所以，一般当新梢有10％左右达到采摘标准时就要开采了，对于采摘细嫩的名茶原料，开采期更应提前。采摘周期是指采摘批次之间的间隔期。采摘周期应根据新梢生育状况，结合采摘标准而定。一般大宗红、绿茶，用手工采的，春茶每隔3~5天采一次，夏、秋茶每隔5~7天采一次。 鲜叶集运鲜叶采下后，一定要做到按级归堆。即使是同一等级的鲜叶，也应做到不同品种的鲜叶分开，晴天叶与雨天叶分开，正常叶与劣变叶分开，成年茶树叶与衰老茶树叶分开，上午采的叶与下午采的叶分开。这些鲜叶如果混在一起，由于老嫩不一，不但给茶叶加工带来麻烦，而且会降低成品茶品质。为了保持鲜叶的鲜度，防止发热红变，采下的鲜叶要按不同级别、不同类型，快装快运给茶厂加工。装运
鲜叶的器具，要保持清洁干净，通气良好。这样，既可防止细菌繁殖而产生异味，又能流通空气，防止茶叶发热变红。实践表明，目前广泛采用的竹编网眼篓筐是一种比较好的盛茶器具。盛装时切忌紧压，及时运送加工厂，按要求分类分级摊放，防止腐烂变质。 二、名优茶加工工艺及技术 （一）扁形名优茶机制工艺技术 扁形名优茶其品质要求总的是：外形扁平挺直，色绿润带毫，香气馥郁持久，滋味鲜醇回甘，汤色嫩绿清亮，叶底黄绿匀亮。 其加工工艺可按“高档原料（特、一级）全程机制，中低档原料（二、三级鲜叶）以机制为主、手工辅助整形“的原则进行，即： （毛烘） a、鲜叶→摊放→杀青（小型滚筒机）理条整形（多功能机） （微型烘干机） →辉锅炒干→（多功能机）→干茶（高档原料机制工艺）。 （毛烘） b、鲜叶→摊放→杀青（多功能机）理条整形（多功能机）→ （微型烘干机） 辉锅炒干（手工辅助炒）→干茶（中低档原料半机制工艺）。 c、鲜叶→摊放→杀青（小型滚筒机）→理条（振动理条机或多功能机）→炒干→整形（振动理条机或多功能机）→干茶（自然舒展直条形机制工艺）。 1、鲜叶原料适制品种为短节、少毫型芽叶品种（如龙井43号、川群种等，适宜加工紧细扁形茶）或芽壮肥厚、
茶叶采摘机文献综述
文献综述报告 （2015届本科） 学院：工程学院 专业：物流工程 班级：2011物工1 姓名：许战胜 学号：1128124 指导教师：吕超 2015年5月
茶叶自动摘采装置设计 摘要：本文梳理国内外关于茶叶采摘设计和发展前景的参考文献，通过分析茶叶市场需求、自动采摘机发展过程、人工采茶的缺点和茶叶的机械化采摘发展前景来为茶叶采摘机的设计改进提供几点建议。为以后的设计改进打下基础。 关键词：茶叶；市场需求；机械化采摘；发展前景 茶叶生产是我国传统产业，茶叶已经成为全球三大饮料之一。随着人们物质水平的提高，对健康饮食的要求也越来越高。而茶叶富含的营养价值也越来越被人们推崇和喜爱。2014年，我国茶叶产量175万吨，居世界首位。可茶叶的生产采摘大多数依赖人工采摘，这无形为茶产业增加了不少人工成本和降低了生产效率。所以一款方便快捷茶叶采摘机成为茶农不可或缺的工具，也可以打破采茶叶的发展瓶颈。 1 茶叶的发展状况和市场需求 1.1茶叶的发展 中国是茶叶的故乡，茶文化也是源远流长。全国种植茶叶的地区越来越多。特别是近些年来，我国茶叶的发展取得了惊人的成就。早期的茶叶种植是以农户个体经营为主体，采用原始的人工采茶和加工，生产效率低下，极大程度限制了茶叶产业的发展。茶叶的加工技术水平落后，无法有效的形成规模化生产和销售。由于当时的茶叶生产水平限制，在采摘、加工、运输和销售的过程中浪费了大量的人力物力，而且产品的品质也得不到保证。茶叶的生产效率低于国际平均水平，茶农大多是依靠自己的经验来进行采摘加工，缺乏专业的技能培训。而且茶叶的品牌也是良莠不齐，大大小小品牌数千个，而知名的就那么几个。但是随着茶叶的需求越来越大，中国的茶叶产业逐渐走进了人们的实现并且被重视起来。随着现代机械化农业发展和国家对茶叶产业的大力扶持，我国茶叶的生产逐渐走向现代化和产业化。茶农们也逐渐使用机械化生产工具对茶叶进行采摘和加工，茶叶的品质也在不断提高。随着越来越多的资本注入，茶叶企业已经意识到现有的茶叶生产规模难以满足市场需求，于是大规模的茶叶种植基地孕育而生。茶叶也从开始的个体化、手工化、家庭式经营逐渐走向了产业化、机械化、品牌化。茶叶产业的发展随着时代的脚步在不断扩大，对茶叶附属的设备机械要求也越来越高，而茶叶采摘机作为当中不可或缺的一步也逐渐走进了茶农的平常生活劳作当中。