| 摘要(英) |
In recent years, higher education appraisal in Taiwan has focused on the outcome-based teaching and assessments approaches. The construction of the curriculum mapping and core competencies in universities across Taiwan emphasizes the students’ acquisition of abilities and skills. However, studies regarding to how teachers conduct outcome-oriented teaching are still lacking. This study explores how a teacher of a Freshman Chinese course focused on the three core competencies and implemented teaching strategies in order to clearly delineate the teacher’s assets and the difficulties during the teaching process. The subjects of study include one college teacher and 23 students. The analysis of the teacher’s reflection of the students’ learning results through triangulation, In addition to interview the teacher, the researchers also entered the classroom to observe the teaching and learning of the class for one year, as well as collected the students’ work in order to triangulate the results from multiple sources.
The results show that the teacher not only emphasized on cultivating students’ critical thinking skills, but more importantly, he strongly believed that students should begin by knowing themselves before expanding their scope to the people and the world around them, which was why the teacher used autobiographies to encourage his students to cultivate a positive attitude toward expressing their feelings and learned how to deal with obstacles. In addition, the teacher conducted several group discussions during the class. He encouraged students to analyze what these writers were thinking and acting while they encountered major difficulties. However, the teacher encountered some obstacles during class discussions. With in-depth analysis, the study found the reasons of the difficulties were due to two reasons: the students’ lack of background information of the discussion theme, and lack of motivation for further exploration. During the interviews with the students, the students said that they felt that the teacher seemed to have standard answers to the questions he probed, and therefore these students were worried that they could not come up with the ‘correct’ answers as the teacher expected. Finally, the implications are provided for college teachers and universities regarding to the design of instructional and teaching strategies to enhance the quality of Freshmen Chinese courses.
|
| 參考文獻 |
中文部分
王文科、王智弘(2010)。教育研究法。臺北市：五南出版社。
王妙純、羅文苑(2010)。親愛的，我把大一國文Live秀了!──以戲劇表演融入國文課程之教學活動設計。新竹教育大學教育學報，27(1)，161-191。
王更生（1997）。台灣國文教學法研究概述。人文及社會學科教學通訊，7(3)，6-22。
王秀珊(2013)。「輔仁大學國文課程推動與革新計劃」之個人教學實踐與分析─試以100學年度上學期「大一國文」課程為例。全人教育學刊，11，45-76。
王秀槐(2011)。學習成果導向的課程設計與評量：理念與實例。教育研究月刊，207，53-59。
王靖婷(2009)。大學國文教學面面觀：相關研究之回顧與展望。通識學刊：理念與實務，1(4)，139-172。
吳清山(2008)。大學生人文素養的內涵與深化。師友月刊，490，14-18。
吳懷晨(2011)。通識化國文課程的教學理念與實施－以「國文：花東文學地景」為例。臺東大學人文學報，1(2)，45-79。
李坤崇(2011)。大學課程發展與學習成效評量。臺北市：高等教育出版社。
李柏毅、陳雅雯、林信榕(2007.12)。從敘說揭開兩位教學傑出教師之教學歷程以提升大學教師教學發展。2007行動研究國際學術研討會。台東：台東大學。
李玲珠(2003)。大學國文教育的人文精神與實踐的省思。中山通識教育學報，3，67-83。
林怡呈、吳毓瑩(2008)。多元評量的活化、迷思、與神話－教學歷程的個案研究。課程與教學，11(1)，147-172。
林從一(2006年4月)。教育部 通識教育中程綱要計畫( 第一年 / 96-99 年度 )-- 通識教育領航、行動與整合計畫(96-1201-05-0003)。取自：http://www3.nccu.edu.tw/~cyberlin/download/9699geproject.pdf
林淑貞(2012)。中興視野:生命現場的臨現:大一國文閱讀與寫作的變革。興大校友，22，42-46。
林寶山(2004)。實用教學原理。台北：心理。
孫貴珠(2013)。大學國文通識化課程規劃與教材取向之商榷反思。通識學刊：理念與實務，2(2)，27-50。
張啟超(2012)。大學通識現代文學課程教材與教法之博雅實踐。全人教育學報，9，93-117。
張雪梅（1999）。我國大學生校園經驗與學習成果之實證研究。台北：張老師文化。
張雪梅(2006)。以學生學習為中心的大學評鑑：大學生能力及其與大學評鑑結果關係初探。教育政策論壇，9(4)，49-76。
教育大辭書(2012年10月)。國家教育研究院：雙語詞彙、學術名詞暨辭書資訊網。取自http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1453920/
梁佩雲(2013)。「成果導向學習」與大學教學的品質提升：以中文學科的實踐為例。教育科學研究期刊，58(4)，1-35。
符碧真(2010年4月1日)。學習成果導向的評量。臺大，教學資源網。取自http://ctld.ntu.edu.tw/fd/teaching_resource/page1-1_detail.php?bgid=2&gid=17&nid=51
許芷維(2008)。第二屆歐洲品質保證論壇 探討品質保證策略與實務。評鑑雙月刊第，12，60-61。
陳立芬(2008.4)。生活化的國文課程設計與教學行動研究。「2008大學本國語(大一國文)課程與教學學術研討會」論文集。苗栗：國立聯合大學。
陳國泰(2009)。大學技職校院優良教學教師的教學策略之個案研究：以擔任「英文」與「邏輯思辨」課程之教師為例。高雄應用科技大學學報，38，95-124。
陳琦媛(2011)。大學生學習成效評量之初探。教育研究月刊，207，32-41。
彭森明 (2010)。大學校院如何推展學生學習成果評量。評鑑雙月刊，24，28-34。
彭森明(2010)。大學生學習成果評量：理論、實務與應用。臺北市：高教評鑑中心基金會。
鈕文英(2013)。質性研究方法與論文寫作。台北:雙葉書廊。
黃瑞琴(1994)。質的教育研究方法(再版)。台北:心理。
楊蕙芳(2012年3月5)搶救國文能力 大學分級上課。國語日報社，臺北。取自：http://www.mdnkids.com/info/news/adv_listdetail.asp?serial=77484
詹千慧(2009)。大學國文單元教學設計芻議。全人教育學刊，5，27-66。
詹海雲（1994）。大學國文教學的回顧與前瞻。人文及社會學科教學通訊，5(3)，45-60。
詹惠雪(2014)。學習成果導向的教學設計與評量：「教學原理」的實踐案例。課程與教學季刊，17(2)，197-226。
廖玉蕙（2001）。文學裡的生活思考－談技職體系裡的中國文學教育。通識教育季刊，8(4)，111-125。
劉金源(2006)。我國大學通識教育的現況，問題與對策。通識學刊:理念與實務，1(1)，1-30。
劉曼君(2014)。學生學習成果之評量及評分量表Rubrics之使用。評鑑雙月刊，48，54-56。
劉學倫(2013.11)。臺灣地區大專校院國語文「課程規劃」概述。全國「大學語文」課程教材與教法研討會論文集。漳州：廈門大學嘉庚學院人文與傳播學院。
潘淑滿(2003)。質性研究：理論與應用。臺北市：心理出版社。
鄭芬蘭、江淑卿、張景媛、陳鳳如(2009)。探究大學教學優良教師的有效能教學活動。教育心理學報，40(4)，663-682。
鄭英耀、蔡佩玲(譯) (2000)。檔案教學。台北：心理。( Danielson, C., & Abrutyn, L., 1997)
簡光明（1994）。大一國文教學的探討。人文及社會學科教學通訊，5(3)，39-44。
簡光明(2004)。醫護學院國文課程融入通識精神之探討-以高雄醫學大學與輔英科技大學“國文”課程為例。通識教育，11(4)，45-66.
羅寶鳳(2011)。高等教育的優質教學：理論架構的探究與教學品質的提升。教育研究月刊，212，64-76。
蘇秀錦(2009)。「最富於孕育性頃刻」在國文影音教學的應用－以戲劇、電影爲例。國文天地，288，60-64。
英文部分
Andrade, H. G., & Boulay, B. A. (2003). Role of rubric-referenced self-assessment in learning to write. The Journal of Educational Research, 97(1), 21-30.
Besterfield-Sacre, M. (2006). Assessment methods for assessing outcomes. Paper presented at the meeting of 2006 National engineering and technology education conference (NETEC). Taipei, Taiwan.
Brookhart, S. M. (1999). The Art and Science of Classroom Assessment: The Missing Part of Pedagogy. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 27(1). Washington, DC: The George Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development.
Crişan, A., & Enache, R. (2011). Designing customer oriented courses and curricula in higher education. A possible model. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 11, 235-239.
Grodzicki, G. P. & Madigan, P. Q. (2011). Outcomes-based assessment in instrumentation and measurement. International Journal of Electrical Engineering Education, 48(4), 451-462. doi: 10.7227/IJEEE.48.4.9
Jackson, P. W.(1990).Life in the classroom. New York: Teacher College Press.
Kaliannan, M. & Chandran, S.D.(2012). Empowering students through outcome-based education (OBE). Research in Education, 87, 50-63.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publication. ISBN: 0-8039-2431-3
Martin-Kniep, G. O. (2000). Becoming a better teacher: Eight innovations that work. ASCD.
Mathews, T. J., & Hansen, C. M. (2004). Ongoing assessment of a university foreign language program. Foreign Language Annals, 37(4), 630-640.
Miller, W., & Crabtree, B. (1992). Overview of qualitative research methods. Doing Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publications.
Moskal, B. M. (2000). Scoring rubrics: what, when, and how? Practical Assessment, Research, & Evaluation, 7(3).
Reynolds, A. (1992). What is competent beginning teaching? A review of the literature. Review of educational research, 62(1), 1-35.
Richard L. Miller、B.Jean Mandernach & Jeanne M. Butler,(2012). In Dunn, D. S., Baker, S. C., Mehrotra, C. M., Landrum, R. E., & McCarthy, M. A. (Eds.), Assessing Teaching and Learning in Psychology: Current and Future Perspectives (pp. 119-130). Cengage Learning.
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard educational review, 57(1), 1-23.
Spady, W. 1994. Outcomes Based Education: Critical Issues and Answers. American Association of School Administration: Arlington, Virginia.
Spady, W. G. (1981). Outcome-based instructional management: A sociological perspective. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.
Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. Y. P. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(4), 292-305..
Wette, R.(2010). Evaluating student learning in a university-level EAP unit on writing using sources. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 158–177.
|
[Endnote RIS 格式]
[相關文章]
[文章引用]
[完整記錄]
[館藏目錄]
[檢視]
plurk
funp
live
udn
HD
myshare
netvibes
friend
youpush
delicious
baidu
Google bookmarks
del.icio.us
hemidemi
facebook
twitter
google
reddit