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

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：129

、訪客IP：3.147.68.100

姓名

莊子寬(Tzu-Kuan Chuang) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

學習與教學研究所

論文名稱

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
(Viewpoints of “Group Discussion in the Classroom”: A Case Study of Teachers Education Course of “Curriculum Development and Design”)

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	★ 探究高中生於論證遊戲中的協同論證模式與過程
★ 以設計研究法發展思考程序課程設計原則

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]

[檢視]

[下載]

本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的，進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定，切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送，以免觸法。

摘要(中)

本論文採用質性個案研究法，使用「立意取樣」選取國立大學師資培育中心的課程——「課程發展與設計」。研究將闡述師資培育中心的學生，在經歷過「課程發展與設計」的課室小組討論後，學期初至學期末學習者對於課室小組討論觀點的改變。對應到四個研究問題：一、學習者於「課程發展與設計」開始前，如何看待與形成課室小組討論觀點？二、學習者經歷一學期討論頻率高的「課程發展與設計」後，如何看待課室小組討論？三、學習者參與「課程發展與設計」的小組討論與反思活動後，學習者、授課教師與研究者分別認為研究對象對於課室小組討論的觀點產生何種變化或不變化？四、學習者、授課教師與研究者認為學習者的課室小組討論觀點，產生改變或不改變的原因為何？研究資料包括了全班的個人反思、個人教案設計、小組教案設計、田野觀察、學習者訪談（各一小組一名）、授課教師訪談。
本研究結果顯示，學習者對於討論觀點的改變因素有五點：發言的安全感、學習合作、真實的體驗、高頻率的討論、高頻率的反思。此外，研究者也會說明不如教師預期的學習者，他們分別的學習狀況及不如預期的原因。為了更深入課室小組討論的本質，為新興的討論模式定位，本研究主張：一、討論中有三種常見的類型：共同建構的討論、單方面的討論、無共識的討論。二、影響課室小組討論觀點改變的因素有學習者的個性與學習風格、學習合作、討論的學習觀點。三、討論的實踐策略包含了改變學習習慣、發言安全感、訂定討論的規則、好的討論內容、大量的課堂討論、大量的課後反思。

摘要(英)

The researcher adopts a qualitative case study and a purposive sampling to select the curriculum of the National University Center for Teacher Education-“Curriculum Development and Design”. This study is designed to understand that students change their viewpoints of group discussion in the classroom from the start of the semester to the end of the term after experiencing the group discussion of "Curriculum Development and Design". Corresponding to four research questions: (1) Before the beginning of “Curriculum Development and Design”, how do learners perceive and form their viewpoints of group discussion in the classroom? (2) After a semester of “Curriculum Development and Design” with a high frequency of the discussion, how do learners perceive their viewpoints of group discussion in the classroom? (3) After learners participate in the group discussion and reflection activities of "Curriculum Development and Design", what changes do learners, the teacher, and researchers think of learner’s viewpoints of group discussion in the classroom? (4) What reason do learners, the teacher, and researchers believe that the views of learners’ classroom group discussions have changed or not changed? The research data include personal reflections, personal design of lesson plan, group design of lesson plan, field observation, interviews with learners (one for each group), and interviews with teachers.
The results of the study show that learners have five points about the changing factors of viewpoints of group discussion: (1) the safety of speaking, (2) learning cooperation and collaboration, (3) authentic experience, (4) high-frequency discussion, and (5) high-frequency reflection. Furthermore, the researcher also illustrates the learning condition of the learner who are not as good as the teacher′s expectations and the reasons why they are not as good as expected.
The research proposes: (1) There are three common types of discussion: co-construction discussion, unilateral discussion, and non-consensus discussion. (2) The factors which influence the changes in the viewpoints of group discussions in the classroom are the learners′ personality, learning style, learning collaboration, learning cooperation, and the learning perspectives of discussion. (3) The practical strategies for discussion include changing study habits, the safety of speaking, setting discussion rules, discussion content, a lot of classroom discussions, and lots of after-school reflections.

關鍵字(中)

★ 課室小組討論
★ 討論觀點
★ 新興的討論模式
★ 「課程發展與設計」

關鍵字(英)

★ group discussion in the classroom
★ viewpoints of discussion
★ emerging discussion mode
★ "Curriculum Development and Design"

論文目次

中文摘要 i
ABSTRACT ii
致謝 iv
目錄 vi
圖目錄 xi
表目錄 xiii
一、緒論 1
1-1 研究動機 1
1-2 研究價值 2
1-3 研究目的與問題 4
1-4 名詞釋義 5
二、文獻探討 10
2-1 關於討論的觀點 10
2-2 課室小組討論的重要性 12
2-3 台灣的課室小組討論研究 14
2-4 小組討論與學習的關係 15
2-5 課室小組討論的模式 17
2-6 合作學習中的討論 19
2-7 好的討論關鍵要素 20
三、研究方法 26
3-1 研究架構與設計 27
3-1-1 研究問題 27
3-1-2 研究方法與架構 27
3-2 研究場域與對象 29
3-2-1 研究情境 30
3-2-2 研究時程與對象 39
3-2-3 研究參與者 40
3-2-4 研究者立場 45
3-3 資料蒐集、處理與分析 46
3-3-1 資料蒐集 46
3-3-2 資料處理與分析 52
3-4 研究信賴度 56
3-5 研究限制 60
四、研究結果 62
4-1 學習者對課程的描述 62
4-1-1 學期初期-發言的安全感 62
4-1-2 學期初期-學習合作討論 63
4-1-3 學期中期-討論的再實踐與反思 69
4-1-4 學期末期-成果展覽 72
4-1-5 學期末期-課程回顧與反思 74
4-2 學習者對討論觀點的變化 76
4-2-1 變化的契機 76
4-2-2 學期初的討論觀點 78
4-2-3 學期末的討論觀點 79
4-3 學習者在教案設計上對討論的變化 87
4-4 與教師預期不同的參與者 90
4-4-1 第一種狀況：排斥討論 90
4-4-2 第二種狀況：退出課程 92
4-4-3 第三種狀況：合作障礙 93
4-4-4 教師對於三種狀況的反思 95
4-5 研究結果小結 96
4-6 研究外的發現——分析討論的框架 99
4-6-1 討論的三種類型 99
五、討論與建議 102
5-1 課室小組討論觀點改變的因素 102
5-1-1 學習者的的個性與學習風格 102
5-1-2 合作學習前，先學習合作 107
5-1-3 「課程發展與設計」的討論之學習觀點 110
5-2 新興的討論模式之實踐策略 111
5-2-1 促使學習者發言的關鍵因素 112
5-2-2 學習合作討論 115
5-3 研究貢獻 120
5-4 未來研究建議 122
5-4-1 研究對象 122
5-4-2 課室小組討論與核心素養的關聯 122
5-4-3 新興討論模式的案例廣度 123
5-4-4 討論觀點與實踐討論是如何互相影響 123
5-4-5 極度抗拒小組討論的人 123
六、研究對我的改變 125
6-1 討論觀點的改變歷程 125
6-1-1 學生 125
6-1-2 助教 126
6-1-3 研究者 127
6-2 質性研究者的改變歷程 128
6-2-1 先導性研究階段 129
6-2-2 進入田野階段 131
6-2-3 論文撰寫階段 132
6-3 給其他質性研究生手的話 135
參考文獻 136
附錄一：訪談大綱（師資生） 144
附錄二：訪談大綱（授課教師） 146
附錄三：訪談記錄表 147
附錄四：設計日誌問題 148
附錄五：我的改變，關於課程設計這門課 150
附錄六：我的學習歷程問題 151
附錄七：「課程發展與設計」課程大綱 152

參考文獻

[1] 王世豪（2019）．深度討論教學法在閱讀理解的教學應用．於王世豪總校閱．深度討論力：高教深耕的國文閱讀思辨素養課程（初版，9-13頁）・五南。
[2] 王金國（2000）．簡介小組討論教學法・教育研究，8，137-147。
[3] 王金國（2004）．多功能的討論教學・靜宜大學地方教育輔導通訊，8，1-8。
[4] 王佳琪、宋世祥(2019)．設計思考融入職前師資培育課程之實施與成效：以適性教學為例．教育科學研究期刊，64（4），145-173。
[5] 王美琇（2008）．小組討論中同儕互動之言談分析（碩士論文）．取自華藝線上圖書館。
[6] 王財印、吳百祿、周新富（2004）．教學原理（初版）．心理。
[7] 石素錦（2003）．國小英文教學師生言談互動模式之探討．高雄師大學報，15，419-446。
[8] 李思源（2018）．生活需要儀式感（初版）．圓神。
[9] 李奉儒（2003）．P.Freire的批判教學論對於教師實踐教育改革的啟示．教育研究集刊，49(3)，1-30。
[10] 沈翠蓮（2001）．教學原理與設計（初版）．五南。
[11] 林佩玄（2013）．台灣高中生在英文文學圈之言談：主題、討論者角色及言談互動（碩士論文）．取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/u35pn4。
[12] 林寶山（1990）．教學論：理論與方法（初版）．五南。
[13] 吳英長（1997）・討論教學法・於黃光雄總校閱，教學理論（初版）・復文圖書。
[14] 徐銀銀（2018）淺談有效課堂小組討論如何落實——以學生的核心素養為導向．現代教育科學，6，99-103。
[15] 陳昭珍（2020）・深度討論教學法概述・於陳昭珍總校閱．深度討論教學法理論與實踐（初版，3-20頁）・元照。
[16] 陳昭珍、黃子純、李純瑀、陳冠蓉、顧蕙倩、陳嘉琪、王世豪（2020）・深度討論教學法理論與實踐（初版）・元照。
[17] 陳埩淑（2002）．教室言談在教學上的涵意與應用．課程與教學，5（4），125-140。
[18] 陳紀錚（2016）．以學生為中心的課堂[討論]．臺灣教育評論月刊，5（6）， 239-244。
[19] 黃永和、李佳潔（2013）．營造討論的學習環境：一個班級的教學實踐經驗．新竹教育大學教育學報，30（2），29-64。
[20] 黃政傑、林佩璇（1996）．合作學習（初版）．五南。
[21] 楊文金（2000）．同儕友伴關係對六年級學生科學問題組對討論的影響分析．科學教育月刊，8（2），123-140。
[22] 蔡敏玲（2002）．教育質性研究歷程的展現：尋找教室團體互動的節奏與變奏（初版）・心理。
[23] 謝賢頴（2019）・課室小組討論的口語參與——以六名大學師資生為例（未出版碩士論文）・國立中央大學，桃園市。
[24] Cazden, C. B. （1998）．教室言談: 教與學的語言（蔡敏玲、彭海燕譯；初版）・心理。（原著出版於1988）
[25] Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N.（2018）．質性研究的五種取徑（李政賢譯）・五南。（原著出版於2016）
[26] Gambrell, L. B., & Almasi, J. F.（2004）．鮮活地討論！培養專注的閱讀（谷瑞勉譯；初版）・心理。（原著出版於1996）
[27] Henderson, J. G.（2000）．反思教學：成為一位探究的教育者（李慕華譯；初版）・心理。（原著出版於1992）
[28] Saltet, J., & Giordan, A.（2009）．學習如何學習（林雅芬譯；初版）・商周。（援助出版於2007）
[29] Shor, I., & Freire, P（2008）．解放教育學：轉化教育對話錄（林邦文譯）・巨流。（原著出版於 1987）
[30] Walsh, J.A., & Sattes, B.D.（2020）．課室討論的關鍵：有意義的發言、專注聆聽與深度思考（張碧珠譯）・五南。（原著出版於2015）
[31] Abdullah, M. Y., Bakar, N. R. A., & Mahbob, M. H. (2012). Student′s Participation in Classroom: What Motivates them to Speak up? Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 51, 516-522.
[32] Aitken, J. E., & Neer, M. R. (1993). College student question‐asking: The relationship of classroom communication apprehension and motivation. Southern Journal of Communication, 59(1), 73-81.
[33] Allington, R. (2001). Teaching children to read: What really matters. Preventing early learning failure, 5-14.
[34] Almasi, J. F. (1995). The nature of fourth graders′ sociocognitive conflicts in peer-led and teacher-led discussions of literature. Reading Research Quarterly, 314-351.
[35] Applebee, A. N. (2003). The language of literature. New York: McDougal.
[36] Armstrong, M., & Boud, D. (1983). Assessing participation in discussion: An exploration of the issues. Studies in Higher Education, 8(1), 33-44.
[37] Astuti, A. P., Aziz, A., Sumarti, S. S., & Bharati, D. A. L. (2019). Preparing 21st Century Teachers: Implementation of 4C Character’s Pre-Service Teacher through Teaching Practice. Paper presented at the Journal of Physics: Conference Series.
[38] Ball, D., & Forzani, F. (2011). Teaching skillful teaching. The Effective Educator, 68(4), 40-45.
[39] Barr, R., & Dreeben, R. (1991). Grouping students for reading instruction. Handbook of reading research, 2, 885-910.
[40] Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., Sandora, C., Kucan, L., & Worthy, J. (1996). Questioning the author: A yearlong classroom implementation to engage students with text. The Elementary School Journal, 96(4), 385-414.
[41] Boyd, M., &Galda, L. (2011). Real Talk in elementary classrooms: Effective oral language practice. New York: Guilford.
[42] Bridges, D. (1979). Education democracy and discussion. Windsor, England: NFER.
[43] Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser, 393-451.
[44] Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
[45] Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard business review, 86(6), 84-92.
[46] Cazden, C. (1986). Classroom discourse′in MC Wittrock (Ed.). In Handbook of Research on Teaching(3rd ed.) (pp. 432-463). New York: London Macmillan.
[47] Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning: ERIC.
[48] Cazden, C. B., & Beck, S. W. (2003). Classroom discourse. Handbook of discourse processes, 165-197.
[49] Cecil, N. L., & Pfeifer, J. (2011). The art of inquiry: Questioning strategies for K-6 classrooms. Portage & Main Press.
[50] Chapin, S. H., O′Connor, C., O′Connor, M. C., & Anderson, N. C. (2009). Classroom discussions: Using math talk to help students learn, Grades K-6: Math Solutions.
[51] Chinn, C. A., Anderson, R. C., & Waggoner, M. A. (2001). Patterns of discourse in two kinds of literature discussion. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(4), 378-411.
[52] Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175-218.
[53] Dewey, J. (1933). How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process. Boston, MA: D.C. Heath & Co Publishers.
[54] Dillon, J. (1985). Using questions to foil discussion. Teaching and teacher education, 1(2), 109-121.
[55] Dillon, J. T. (1983). Teaching and the Art of Questioning. Fastback 194: ERIC.
[56] Dillon, J. T. (1984). Research on questioning and discussion. Educational Leadership, 42(3), 50-56.
[57] Dillon, J. T. (1988). The remedial status of student questioning. Journal of Curriculum studies, 20(3), 197-210.
[58] Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed ( 30th Anniversary Edition ) . NY:
Continuum.
[59] Gambrell, L. B., & Almasi, J. F. (1996). Lively discussions! Fostering engaged reading: ERIC.
[60] Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Computers in Entertainment (CIE), 1(1), 20-20.
[61] Gee, J. P. (2004). Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling: Psychology Press.
[62] Gershon, M. (2018). How to use questioning in the classroom: The complete guide. Hawker Brownlow.
[63] Gillies, R. M. (2004). The effects of cooperative learning on junior high school students during small group learning. Learning and instruction, 14(2), 197-213.
[64] Hakkarainen, K., & Paavola, S. (2009). Toward a trialogical approach to learning. In B. Schwarz. T. Dreyfus, & H. Hershkowitz (Eds). Transtormation of knowledge thiough.classroom interaction (pp. 65-80). London, UK: Routledge.
[65] Haller, E. P., Child, D. A., & Walberg, H. J. (1988). Can comprehension be taught? A quantitative synthesis of “metacognitive” studies. Educational researcher, 17(9), 5-8.
[66] Hayakawa, S. I. & Hayakawa A. R. (1949). Language in thought and action. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
[67] Howard, J. R., & Henney, A. L. (1998). Student participation and instructor gender in the mixed-age college classroom. The Journal of Higher Education, 69(4), 384-405.
[68] Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1979). Conflict in the classroom: Controversy and learning. Review of educational Research, 49(1), 51-69.
[69] Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research: Interaction Book Company.
[70] Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Evaluating constructivistic learning. Educational technology, 31(9), 28-33.
[71] Kindley, R. (2002). The power of simulation-based e-learning (SIMBEL). The eLearning Developers’ Journal, 17, 1-8.
[72] Kucan, L. (2009). Engaging teachers in investigating their teaching as a linguistic enterprise: The case of comprehension instruction in the context of discussion. Reading Psychology, 30(1), 51-87.
[73] Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational researcher, 28(2), 16-46.
[74] Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
[75] Lemke, J. (1998). Multiplying meaning. Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science, 87-113.
[76] Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values: ERIC.
[77] McKeachie, W. J. (1990). Research on college teaching: The historical background. Journal of educational psychology, 82(2), 189.
[78] McKeown, M. G., & Beck, I. L. (2004). Transforming knowledge into professional development resources: Six teachers implement a model of teaching for understanding text. The Elementary School Journal, 104(5), 391-408.
[79] McLuhan, M. (1994). Understanding media: The extensions of man. Boston, MA: MIT press.
[80] Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom: Harvard University Press.
[81] Mercer, N. (1996). The quality of talk in children′s collaborative activity in the classroom. Learning and Instruction, 6(4), 359-377.
[82] Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children′s thinking: A sociocultural approach: Routledge.
[83] Michaels, S., & O’Connor, C. (2015). Conceptualizing talk moves as tools: Professional development approaches for academically productive discussion. Socializing intelligence through talk and dialogue, 347-362.
[84] Murphy, P. K., Firetto, C. M., Wei, L., Li, M., & Croninger, R. M. (2016). What REALLY works: Optimizing classroom discussions to promote comprehension and critical-analytic thinking. Policy Insights from the behavioral and brain sciences, 3(1), 27-35.
[85] Murphy, P. K., Wilkinson, I. A., Soter, A. O., Hennessey, M. N., & Alexander, J. F. (2009). Examining the effects of classroom discussion on students’ comprehension of text: A meta-analysis. Journal of educational psychology, 101(3), 740.
[86] O’Connor, C., & Michaels, S. (2007). When is dialogue ‘dialogic’? Human Development, 50(5), 275-285.
[87] Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1989). Classroom dialogues to promote self-regulated comprehension. Advances in research on teaching, 1, 35-71.
[88] Palincsar, A. S., & Herrenkohl, L. R. (2002). Designing collaborative learning contexts. Theory into practice, 41(1), 26-32.
[89] Pea, R. D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations, 11, 47-87.
[90] Reznitskaya, A., & Anderson, R. C. (2002). The argument schema and learning to reason. Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices, 319-334.
[91] Reznitskaya, A., Kuo, L.-j., Glina, M., & Anderson, R. C. (2009). Measuring argumentative reasoning: What′s behind the numbers? Learning and individual differences, 19(2), 219-224.
[92] Reznitskaya, A., Kuo, L. J., Clark, A. M., Miller, B., Jadallah, M., Anderson, R. C., & Nguyen‐Jahiel, K. (2009). Collaborative reasoning: A dialogic approach to group discussions. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(1), 29-48.
[93] Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2016). Creating, crisscrossing, and rising above idea landscapes. In R. H. Huang, A. Kinshuk, & J. K. Price (Eds.), ICT in education in global context: Comparative reports of k-12 schools innovation (pp. 3-17). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
[94] Silver, H., Strong, R. W., & Perini, M. J. (1997). Integrating Learning Styles and Multiple Intelligences. Educational Leadership, 55(1), 22-27.
[95] Sipayung, D. H., Sani, R. A., & Bunawan, H. (2018). Collaborative Inquiry For 4C Skills. Paper presented at the 3rd Annual International Seminar on Transformative Education and Educational Leadership (AISTEEL 2018).
[96] Slavin, R. E. (1990). Research on cooperative learning: Consensus and controversy. Educational Leadership, 47(4), 52-54.
[97] Soter, A. O., Wilkinson, I. A., Murphy, P. K., Rudge, L., Reninger, K., & Edwards, M. (2008). What the discourse tells us: Talk and indicators of high-level comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research, 47(6), 372-391.
[98] Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (2009). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world′s teachers for improving education in the classroom: Simon and Schuster.
[99] Tessmer, M., & Richey, R. C. (1997). The role of context in learning and instructional design. Educational technology research and development, 45(2), 85-115.
[100] Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the development of children, 23(3), 34-41.
[101] Walsh, J. A., & Sattes, B. D. (2015). Questioning for classroom discussion: Purposeful speaking, engaged listening, deep thinking: ASCD.
[102] Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring classroom discourse: Language in action: Taylor & Francis.
[103] Weaver, R. R., & Qi, J. (2005). Classroom organization and participation: College students′ perceptions. The Journal of Higher Education, 76(5), 570-601.
[104] Webb, N. M., & Palincsar, A. S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom: Prentice Hall International.
[105] Wilkinson, I. A., Reznitskaya, A., Bourdage, K., Oyler, J., Glina, M., Drewry, R., . . . Nelson, K. (2017). Toward a more dialogic pedagogy: changing teachers’ beliefs and practices through professional development in language arts classrooms. Language and education, 31(1), 65-82.

指導教授

詹明峰(Ming-Fong Jan)

審核日期

2021-7-29

推文