| dc.description.abstract | 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。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | 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. | en_US |