以設計研究法發展思考程序課程設計原則

以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：150

、訪客IP：18.218.94.164

姓名

陳若盈(Jou-Yin Chen) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

學習與教學研究所

論文名稱

以設計研究法發展思考程序課程設計原則
(Developing thinking routines instructional design principles through design-based research)

相關論文

★ 課室小組討論活動的口語參與-以六名大學師資生為例	★ 地理素養教學在台灣中學的教學和挑戰－以三位中學地理科教師為例
★ 探究師資生素養導向課程之設計能力與改變	★ 探究課室小組討論觀點——以「課程發展與設計」的師資培育課程為例
★ 探究高中生於論證遊戲中的協同論證模式與過程

檔案

[Endnote RIS 格式]

[Bibtex 格式]

[相關文章]

[文章引用]

[完整記錄]

[館藏目錄]

至系統瀏覽論文 (2026-8-1以後開放)

摘要(中)

國際教育趨勢對於思考相關的素養日益重視，許多學者已提出將思考融入教學的作法，例如Ennis (2018)提出的「跨學科的批判思考」計畫(Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum)、Brown (1997)的「建構學習者社群」計畫(Fostering Communities of Learners)、以及哈佛大學零點計畫(Project Zero) (Ritchhart et al., 2011)提出「可視化思考計畫」(Visible Thinking)，都強調思考為本的教學。在英語教學的領域，也有許多將思考教學融入的做法，例如用融入閱讀課(Liao, 2009)、寫作課 (Tung et al., 2013)、英文口說課(Balboa & Briesmaster, 2018)、英文電影課（林純言，2005；陳若盈、詹明峰，2023b）等，在教學策略也有許多討論(Yuan et al., 2022)。然而，如何突破體制面、教學面、學習面仍有許多挑戰。
本研究融入思考程序於大學通識英文的英文電影與社會議題課程中，欲利用思考程序培養思考能力與營造思考文化的特性，同時提升學習者的思考能力與學習表現。在研究者的前期研究已發現思考程序融入對學習成效有正面影響，然而發現可視化思考計畫整理的思考程序的指引，大多侷限在學習任務的設計，而缺乏整體課程設計觀，相關研究中亦發現缺乏思考程序與課程目標、建立課堂互動、以及評估思考程序與學習成效的對應。此外，這些研究大多強調思考程序的實務應用之正面效益或是提出創新作法，幾乎沒有從實徵研究的發現，再更深入探討研究發現如何能回應思考程序的理論。換句話說，思考程序相關的理論如何接合到實務，實務的發現又如何回應理論，仍存有未明之處。
　　基於上述問題，研究者認為有必要提出一套理論為基礎、經場域驗證的課程設計原則，以解決前段指出的對應問題，並從場域驗證與修正設計原則，進而增益理論。為此目的，本研究採設計研究法(design-based research)，以大學通識英文的英文電影與社會議題課程為場域，融入思考程序於課程設計中，綜合考量實務中的需求，並從社會文化觀點的思考教學以及思考程序的學理基礎，擬定初始的設計原則，再結合三階段設計研究循環(McKenney & Reeves, 2012; Cobb& Gravemeijer, 2008)與預測圖(conjecture mapping) (Sandoval, 2014)，迭代評估與發展思考程序的課程設計原則。本研究探討以下研究問題：
1.思考程序課程設計使學習者思考外化的中介過程為何？
2.思考程序課程設計如何影響學生的學習表現？
3.小組使用思考程序時如何進行協同合作與對話為彼此搭建思考？
4.思考程序融入的課程設計原則為何？
　　本研究經歷兩個研究循環，發展出三個設計原則：1. 依學習情境需求改編並重複使用思考程序；2. 對應課程目標、思考行動、思考程序、評量標準；3. 提供小組使用思考程序進行協同合作與對話的機會，亦提出整體課程設計觀點的思考程序課程設計。
　　本研究有三個貢獻：提出整體課程設計觀的思考程序課程設計原則、接合思考程序相關理論與實務、提出研究方法論翻新。同時，亦對未來研究提出三點建議：審慎擬定設計研究方法論的研究架構、建立一個緊密合作的研究團隊、提升研究場域的多元性。

摘要(英)

Introduction
This study integrates thinking routines into a university English course on films and social issues. Previous research on thinking routines focused on designing learning tasks but lacked a holistic curriculum design perspective. Misalignment with thinking moves, curriculum objectives, and assessment has obscured the link between thinking routines and learning outcomes. Additionally, prior studies mostly emphasized intervention effects or innovative practices without detailing how theory informs practice or how empirical findings respond to theoretical advancements. Consequently, many innovative practices ended up as teaching improvisation without explaining the underlying instructional design principles. This study aims to bridge the theory-practice gap by exploring: (1) How does thinking routines instruction externalize learners′ thinking? (2) How does it affect students′ learning performance? (3) How do group collaboration and discourse help students build on each other’s thinking? (4) What are the design principles of thinking routines instructional design?
Context and participants
This research was conducted in an English as a Foreign Language course titled "Social Issues from English Movies" at a Taiwanese university. There were two iterative cycles, each conducted within the same course, taught by the same instructor, and spanning two semesters in two different classes. Iteration 1 included 20 students, and Iteration 2 had 24. In each iteration, thinking routines-based instruction was implemented for a semester-long course, with classes meeting for three hours each week, lasting for 18 weeks. The overarching goal was to make thinking visible and create a thoughtful classroom.
Research methodology
This study adopts a design-based research methodology, aligning three-phase design research cycles (McKenney & Reeves, 2012; Cobb & Gravemeijer, 2008), conjecture mapping (Sandoval, 2014), and the curricular spider web (van den Akker, 2013) to capture the trajectories of the evolution of thinking routines instructional design principles. Each iteration included three phases: analysis and exploration, design and construction, and evaluation and reflection. Based on findings from literature and a pilot study, the researcher proposed an initial set of design principles, the initial conjecture map and an instructional design to be implemented in design research cycles. Evaluation and reflection research process and outcome then led to the onset of the second iteration. Then Iteration 2 started with Phase I design and construction, which included the revision of design principles, conjecture map, and the instructional design. Phase 2 was evaluation and reflection. Retrospective analysis of the research then concluded with a mature set of design principles. To reveal the effects of instruction on both mediating processes and learning outcomes, a variety of both quantitative and qualitative data were collected: pre- and post-tests of writing, a thinking self-evaluation survey, artifacts from thinking routines, group interactional data, students’ self-reflections, and focus group interviews. The analysis of these data revealed the extent of the validation of design principles.
Findings
The study conducted two research cycles and developed three design principles: DP1: Adapt and repeatedly use thinking routines according to the needs of the local learning context; DP2: Align curriculum objectives, thinking moves, thinking routines, and assessment; DP3: Provide opportunities for groups to use thinking routines for collaborative cooperation and discourse. A holistic curricular perspective for thinking instructional design has also been proposed. This study offers three contributions: the innovation of thinking routines research, including new instructional design principles and contexts; the bridging of theory and practice through validated design principles; and the advancement of methodology with revised three-phase design research cycles and conjecture mapping. Due to limited resources and time, this study could not implement the instructional design in more diverse contexts. Future research should adapt and apply this design in varied contexts to accumulate design knowledge.

關鍵字(中)

★ 思考程序
★ 設計研究法
★ 設計原則
★ 預測圖

關鍵字(英)

★ thinking routines
★ design-based research
★ design principles
★ conjecture mapping

論文目次

第一章緒論 1
第一節思考教學的趨勢 1
第二節思考教學的迷思 3
第三節思考教學的挑戰 4
第四節思考程序融入課程的課程設計原則 5
第二章文獻探討 7
第一節社會文化觀點的思考教學 7
一、情境認知與思考教學 7
二、透過濡化過程培養思考習性 8
三、認知師徒制與讓思考可見 8
四、小結 9
第二節思考教學融入英語教學 10
一、思考融入課程的教學策略 10
二、思考融入英語課堂的策略 11
三、思考融入英語教學的相關研究 12
四、小結 13
第三節思考程序的內涵及相關研究 14
一、思考程序的內涵 14
二、思考程序融入教學的相關研究 18
三、思考程序的課程設計原則 21
第四節設計研究法進行迭代課程設計 22
一、設計研究法方法論介紹 22
二、以三階段設計研究循環進行設計研究 31
三、預測圖的學理基礎與應用 34
四、結合三階段設計研究循環與預測圖 36
五、小結 37
第三章研究方法 38
第一節研究對象 38
第二節研究架構 40
第三節課程設計 43
一、課程背景與學習情境 43
二、本地情境之待決問題分析 44
三、先導研究及與實務工作者合作 45
四、初擬設計原則 47
五、思考程序融入的課程設計 50
第四節資料蒐集與分析方法 58
一、資料蒐集規畫 58
二、資料蒐集與分析方法 61
第五節研究者的反身性與研究信實度 73
第四章研究結果與討論 75
第一節研究循環一的研究結果與討論 75
一、研究循環一的設計與建構 76
二、研究循環一的評估與反思 83
第二節研究循環二的研究結果與討論 114
一、研究循環二的設計與建構 115
二、研究循環二的評估與反思 126
第三節完整的思考程序課程設計原則與討論 160
一、思考程序課程設計原則發展過程與反思 161
二、思考程序的整體課程設計 173
第五章討論與結論 178
第一節討論 178
一、不只是小組討論 178
二、思考程序融入的課堂氛圍 181
第二節結論 184
一、整體課程設計觀的思考程序課程設計原則 184
二接合理論與實務 185
三、研究方法論的翻新 186
第三節未來研究建議 187
一、審慎擬定設計研究方法論的研究架構 188
二、建立緊密合作的研究團隊 188
三、提升研究場域的多元性 189
參考文獻 190
附錄 202

參考文獻

林純言（2005）。批判性思考於英語教學中之應用－以電影教學為例。教育暨外國語文學報(2), 53-69。https://doi.org/10.6372/jefll.200512.0053
教育部國民及學前教育署（2014）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱。教育部國民中小學課程與教學資源整合平臺 https://cirn.moe.edu.tw/WebContent/index.aspx?sid=11&mid=12504
教育部國民及學前教育署（2018）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要國民中小學暨普通型高級中等學校語文領域-英語文。教育部國民中小學課程與教學資源整合平臺 https://cirn.moe.edu.tw/WebContent/index.aspx?sid=11&mid=5870
陳若盈、詹明峰（2023a）。素養導向的大學英文課：以議題融入概念為本的設計。通識教育學刊，31，163-217。 https://doi.org/10.6360/tjge.202306_(31).0005
陳若盈、詹明峰（2023b）。可視化思考教學法融入大學英文之教學實踐：以英文電影議題課為例。教學實踐與創新，6（2），149-193。https://doi.org/10.53106/261654492023090602004
陳若盈、詹明峰（n.d.）。設計大學英語課程中的思考教育：以可視化思考融入英文電影議題課程為例。未出版的手稿。
陳秋蘭（2015）。批判思考的理念與英語教學應用。載於陳秋蘭、程玉秀（主編），培養思考力：以高中階段英語教育為例（頁 1-16）。文鶴。
程玉秀（2015）。思考能力納入高中英文課程目標之政策：形塑與實踐。載於陳秋蘭、程玉秀（主編），培養思考力：以高中階段英語教育為例（頁 37-57）。文鶴。
Bailin, S., Case, R., Coombs, J. R., & Daniels, L. B. (1999a). Common misconceptions of critical thinking. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(3), 269-283. https://doi.org/10.1080/002202799183124
Bailin, S., Case, R., Coombs, J. R., & Daniels, L. B. (1999b). Conceptualizing critical thinking. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(3), 285-302. https://doi.org/10.1080/002202799183133
Balboa, F. A., & Briesmaster, M. (2018). “Claim-support-question” routine to foster coherence within interactive oral communication among EFL students. Profile: Issues in Teachers′ Professional Development, 20(2), 143-160. https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v20n2.63554
Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1301_1
Bradley, B., & Reinking, D. (2011). Enhancing research and practice in early childhood through formative and design experiments. Early Child Development and Care, 181, 305-319. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430903357894
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington DC: National Academy Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/9853
Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2012) Thematic analysis. In H. Cooper, P. M. Camic, D. L. Long, A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, & K. J. Sher (Eds), APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol. 2: Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological (pp. 57-71). American Psychological Association.
Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141-178. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0202_2
Brown, A. L. (1997). Transforming schools into communities of thinking and learning about serious matters. American Psychologist, 52(4), 399-413. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.4.399
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X018001032
Burkhard, M., Seufert, S., Gubelmann, R., Niklaus, C., & Panjaburee, P. (2023). Computer supported argumentation learning: Design of a learning scenario in academic writing by means of a conjecture map. Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Computer Supported Education, Prague, Czech Republic. https://doi.org/10.5220/0011984100003470
Campbell, T., McKenna, T. J., Fazio, X., Hetherington-Coy, A., & Pierce, P. (2019). Negotiating coherent science teacher professional learning experiences across a university and partner school settings. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 30(2), 179-199. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2018.1547033
Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design Experiments in Educational Research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9-13. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032001009
Cobb, P., & Gravemeijer, K. (2008). Experimenting to support and understand learning processes. In A. E. Kelly, R. A. Lesh, & J. Y. Baek (Eds.), Handbook of design research methods in education. (pp. 68-95). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315759593.ch4
Collins, A. (1992). Toward a Design Science of Education. In: Scanlon, E., O’Shea, T. (eds), New Directions in Educational Technology. NATO ASI Series, vol 96. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-77750-9_2
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American Educator, 15(3), 6-11.
Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15-42. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1301_2
Costa, A. L., Kallick, B., McTighe, J., & Zmuda, A. (2020). Dispositions by design. Educational Leadership, 77(6), 54-59.
Dajani, M. (2016). Using thinking routines as a pedagogy for teaching English as a second language in Palestine. Journal of Educational Research and Practice, 6(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.5590/JERAP.2016.06.1.01
Delany, C., & Golding, C. (2014). Teaching clinical reasoning by making thinking visible: An action research project with allied health clinical educators. BMC Medical Education, 14(1), 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-14-20
Derry, S. J., Pea, R. D., Barron, B., Engle, R. A., Erickson, F., Goldman, R., Hall, R., Koschmann, T., Lemke, J. L., Sherin, M. G., & Sherin, B. L. (2010). Conducting video research in the learning sciences: Guidance on selection, analysis, technology, and ethics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(1), 3-53. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400903452884
Dinsmore, D. L., & Fryer, L. K. (2023). Critical thinking and its relation to strategic processing. Educational Psychology Review, 35(1), 36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09755-z
diSessa, A. A., & Cobb, P. (2004). Ontological innovation and the role of theory in design experiments. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 77-103. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1301_4
Edelson, D. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 105-121. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1101_4
Ennis, R. H. (2018). Critical thinking across the curriculum: A vision. Topoi, 37. pp. 165-184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-016-9401-4
Flower, L. W., D. L.; Noriss, L; Burnett, R. E. (1994). Making thinking visible writing collaborative planning and classroom inquiry.
Fullan, M., Quinn, J. & McEachen J. J. (2018). Deep Learning: Engage the world change the world. Corwin Press and Ontario Principals’ Council.
Gholam, A. (2018). Student engagement through visual thinking routines. Athens Journal of Education, 5(2), 161-172. https://doi.org/10.30958/aje.5-2-4
Gravemeijer, K., & Cobb, P. (2006). Design research from a learning design perspective. In J. van den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational Design Research (pp. 17-51). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203088364
Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 23-48. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02319856
Hemberger, L., Kuhn, D., Matos, F., & Shi, Y. (2017). A dialogic path to evidence-based argumentative writing. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 26(4), 575-607. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2017.1336714
Herrington, A., Herrington, J., & Mantei, J. (2009). Design principles for mobile learning. In J. Herrington, A. Herrington, J. Mantei, I. Olney, B. Ferry (Eds.), New technologies, new pedagogies: Mobile learning in higher education (pp. 129-138). University of Wollongong.
Hooper, T. (2015). Improving academic writing through thinking routines. Kwansei Gakuin University Humanities Review, 20, 47-63.
Jamal, A., Yusof, S. M., & Jamal, A. M. (2023). What were they thinking? What student journals tell about Indian students’ meaning-making. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/s4j3x
Jordan, B., and Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences. 4, 39–103. https://doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls0401_2
Khalid, M. & Foo, Y. (2021). Thinking routines and their impact on classroom dialogue. ELIS. https://elis.moe.edu.sg/files/erf-2017-03-yyf-research-report-2021-09-28.pdf
Klein, E. R., Bell, P. (2023). Distributing Expertise and Building Relationships: Designing for Relational Equity in Youth–Scientist Mentoring Interactions. Journal of Higher Education Outreach & Engagement, 27(1), 75-108.
Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 16-46. https://doi.org/10.2307/1177186
Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kuhn, D., & Crowell, A. (2011). Dialogic Argumentation as a vehicle for developing young adolescents′ thinking. Psychological Science, 22, 545-552. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611402512
Kuhn, D. (2022) Let’s discuss: Second-language learners share ideas, Teacher’s edition. New York: Wessex Press.
Lee, V. R., Recker, M., & Phillips, A. L. (2018). Conjecture mapping the library: Iterative refinements toward supporting maker learning activities in small community spaces. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS), London, UK. https://doi.dx.org/10.22318/cscl2018.320
Liao, M. (2009). Cultivating critical thinking through literature circles in EFL context. SPECTRUM: NCUE Studies in Language, Literature, Translation, (5), 89-115. https://doi.org/10.29601/yywyll.200907.0006
Lim, C. H. (2017). Cultivating higher order thinking dispositions of undergraduate students. International Journal of Learning and Teaching, 3(2), 154-159. https://doi.org/10.18178/IJLT.3.2.154-159.
Lin, Y. (2018). Developing critical thinking in EFL classes. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7784-5
Lin, P., Zeng W., & Lim W. Y. (2018). Use of visible thinking tools in teacher-led discussions to develop critical writing skills in economics. ELIS. https://elis.moe.edu.sg/files/2018-temasek-jc.pdf
Liu, P. H. E., Wu, W. C. V., & Shieh, R. S. (2015). Enhancing EFL students′ critical thinking and writing: An asynchronous debate instructional design. English Teaching and Learning, 39, 33-59. https://doi.org/10.6330/ETL.2015.39.3.02
Manurung, M. R., Masitoh, S., & Arianto, F. (2022). How thinking routines enhance critical thinking of elementary students. IJORER: International Journal of Recent Educational Research, 3(6), 640-650. https://doi.org/10.46245/ijorer.v3i6.260
McKenney, S., Nieveen, N., van den Akker, J. (2006). Design research from a curriculum perspective. In J. van den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational Design Research (1st ed., pp. 67-90). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203088364
McKenney, S. E., & Reeves, T. C. (2012). Conducting educational design research. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315105642
Mertens, C. (2018). Thinking routines in the EFL classroom. Language and Culture: The Journal of the Institute for Language and Culture(22), 191-202.
Nathan, M. J. & Sawyer, R. K. (2014). Foundations of learning sciences. In R. K. Sawyer
(Ed.). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 21-43) (Chapter 2). Cambridge University Press.
Ng, S. W. C. (2005). The role of film in ELT: A case study of a Hong Kong classroom. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 15, 69-93.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2019). OECD future of education and skills 2030: Conceptual learning framework. https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/contact/OECD_Learning_Compass_2030_Concept_Note_Series.pdf
Perkins, D., & Ritchhart, R. (2004). When is good thinking? In D. Y. Dai & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Motivation, emotion and cognition: Integrative perspectives on intellectual functioning and development (1st ed., pp. 351-384). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410610515
Pinedo, R., García, N., & Cañas, M. (2018). Thinking routines across different subjects and educational levels. Proceedings of INTED2018 Conference 5th-7th March 2018, (pp. 5577-5580). Valencia, Spain. ISBN: 978-84-697-9480-7. https://doi.org/10.21125/inted.2018.1317
Pill, S., & SueSee, B. (2017). Including critical thinking and problem solving in physical education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 88(9), 43-49. https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2017.1367741
Project Zero. Thinking Routine Toolbox. Project Zero: https://pz.harvard.edu/thinking-routines
Reimann, P. (2011). Design-based research. In L. Markauskaite, P. Freebody, & J. Irwin (Eds.), Methodological choice and design: Scholarship, policy and practice in social and educational research (pp. 37-50). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8933-5_3
Resnick, L. B. (1987). Education and learning to think. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/1032
Ritchhart, R. (2002). Intellectual character: What it is, why it matters, and how to get it (1st ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Ritchhart, R., & Perkins, D. (2005). Learning to think: The challenges of teaching thinking. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 775-802). Cambridge University Press.
Ritchhart, R., Palmer, P., Church, M., & Tishman, S. (2006). Thinking routines: Establishing patterns of thinking in the classroom. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, San Francisco.
Ritchhart, R., Church, M., & Morrison, K. (2011). Making thinking visible: How to promote engagement, understanding, and independence for all learners. Jossey-Bass.
Ritchhart, R (2013). General guidelines of the assessment of students’ development as thinkers. Ron Ritchhart. https://www.ronritchhart.com/general-6
Ritchhart, R. (2015) Creating cultures of thinking: The 8 forces we must master to truly transform our schools. Jossey-Bass.
Ritchhart, R., & Church, M. (2020). The power of making thinking visible: Practices to engage and empower all learners. Jossey-Bass.
Salmon, A. K. (2008a). Young English language learners making thinking and language visible. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal(10), 126-141. https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=305726656002
Salmon, A. K. (2008b). Promoting a culture of thinking in the young child. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35, 457-461. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-007-0227-y
Salmon, A. K. (2016). Learning by thinking during play: The power of reflection to aid performance. Early Child Development and Care, 186(3), 480-496. httaps://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2015.1032956
Sandoval, W. A. (2004). Developing learning theory by refining conjectures embodied in educational designs. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 213-223. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3904_3
Sandoval, W. A. (2014). Conjecture mapping: An approach to systematic educational design research. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(1), 18-36. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2013.778204
Shaffer, D. W., & Resnick, M. (1999). " Thick" authenticity: New media and authentic learning. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 10(2), 195-216.
Stromholt, S., & Bell, P. (2018). Designing for expansive science learning and identification across settings. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 13(4), 1015-1047. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-017-9813-5
The Design-Based Research Collective (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5-8. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032001005
Tishman, S., Jay, E., & Perkins, D. (1993). Teaching thinking dispositions: From transmission to enculturation. Theory into Practice, 32(3), 147-153. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849309543590
Tung, C. A., Chang, S. Y., & Peng, F. M. (2013). A better form of peer review with the integration of critical thinking training in an EFL writing class-CMPR or OPPR? Feng Chia Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 26, 95-127.
Valentine, K. D., & Kopcha, T. J. (2016). The embodiment of cases as alternative perspective in a mathematics hypermedia learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(6), 1183-1206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9443-8
van den Akker, J. (1999). Principles and methods of development research. In J. van den Akker, R. M. Branch, K. Gustafson, N. Nieveen, & T. Plomp (Eds.), Design approaches and tools in education and training (pp. 1-14). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4255-7_1
van den Akker, J. (2013). Curricular development research as a specimen of educational design research. In T. Plomp, & N., Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research-Part A: An introduction (pp. 52-71). SLO.
van den Akker, J. & Nieveen, N. (2021). Combining curriculum and teacher development through design research. In Z. A. Philippakos, Howell, E.; & Pellegrino, A. (Ed.), Design-based research in education theory and applications (pp. 272-295). Guilford Press.
Vieira, C., Mariz, D., & Hoki, L. (2023). A routine to develop inferencing skills in primary school children. In M. A. V. Mancenido-Bolaños, C. J. P. Alvarez-Abarejo, & L. P. Marquez (Eds.), Cultivating Reasonableness in Education: Community of Philosophical Inquiry (pp. 95-117). Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-4198-8_6
Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504682
Wang, S., & Seepho, S. (2017). Facilitating Chinese EFL Learners’ Critical Thinking Skills: The Contributions of Teaching Strategies. Sage Open, 7(3), 2158244017734024. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244017734024
Wilkerson, M. (2017). Teachers, students, and after-school professionals as designers of digital tools for learning. In B. DiSalvo, Yip, J., Bonsignore, E., & DiSalvo, C. (Ed.), Participatory Design for Learning. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315630830-13
Williams, N., & Moore, S. (2021). The role of a selected thinking routine in the development of critical thinking skills in preschool students. Caribbean Journal of Education, 43(2), 47-68. https://doi.org/10.46425/c034302b9859
World Economic Forum. (2023) The Future of Jobs Report 2023. World Economic Forum: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/05/future-of-jobs-technology-skills-workplace/
Wozniak, H. (2015). Conjecture mapping to optimize the educational design research process. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(5). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2505
Xu, J. (2023). Developing emotional intelligence in children through dialogic reading, self-made books, and visible thinking routines. Early Childhood Education Journal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-023-01520-9
Yang, Y.-T. C., & Gamble, J. (2013). Effective and practical critical thinking-enhanced EFL instruction. ELT Journal, 67(4), 398-412. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cct038
Yuan, R., Yang, M., & Lee, I. (2021). Preparing pre-service language teachers to teach critical thinking: Can overseas field school experience make a difference? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 40, 100832. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100832
Yuan, R., Liao, W., Wang, Z., Kong, J., & Zhang, Y. (2022). How do English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) teachers perceive and engage with critical thinking: A systematic review from 2010 to 2020. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 43, 101002. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101002
Zhao, C., Pandian, A., & Mehar Singh, M. K. (2016). Instructional strategies for developing critical thinking in EFL classrooms. English Language Teaching, 9, 14-21. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n10p14

指導教授

詹明峰(Mingfong Jan)

審核日期

2024-7-23

推文