Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/99656| DC Field | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 洪煌堯 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.advisor | Hong, Huang Yao | en_US |
| dc.contributor.author | 楊怡婷 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author | Yang, I Ting | en_US |
| dc.creator | 楊怡婷 | zh_TW |
| dc.creator | Yang, I Ting | en_US |
| dc.date | 2016 | en_US |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2016-08-03T02:45:22Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2016-08-03T02:45:22Z | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2016-08-03T02:45:22Z | - |
| dc.identifier | G0103152010 | en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/99656 | - |
| dc.description | 碩士 | zh_TW |
| dc.description | 國立政治大學 | zh_TW |
| dc.description | 教育學系 | zh_TW |
| dc.description | 103152010 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | 傳統作品導向(product-oriented)英文寫作教學重結果、輕過程，加上傳統學習環境多以教師為中心，重講述、少建構，不僅容易限制寫作內容的創意展現與發展，同時，學生在學習上亦容易處於一個被動獲知的角色。知識翻新理論中的知識建構歷程與想法創化環境，則提供了英文教師與學習者一個另類的教學設計原則以及學習環境感受。因此，研究者希冀能透過知識翻新教學理論之原理原則，設計出一套適用於高中生的英文寫作活動，幫助學生產出想法、發揮創意、提升寫作品質。有鑑於此，本研究旨在探討結合電腦輔助平台（即知識論壇）之知識翻新教學活動對高中生學習環境感知與英文寫作表現之影響。研究方法採個案研究法，研究對象為39名高二文組班學生。\n\n 本研究除了探討知識翻新活動對學生學習環境感知與英文作文寫作表現的差異情形之外，更進一步探討學生於構思階段寫作想法的轉變歷程以及教師在進行教學時的反思情形。本研究的資料來源包括：（1）知識創新學習環境問卷；（2）英文寫作成品；（3）構思活動記錄；（4）開放式問卷；（5）教師教學反思記錄。上述資料分析採量化的成對樣本t檢定、Pearson相關、描述性統計、獨立樣本t檢定、與單因子變異數等統計分析以及質性的內容分析，藉以瞭解學生對知識翻新創意氛圍的感知情形與英文寫作表現，以及以知識翻新原則導向的想法演變歷程與教學反思情形。\n\n 研究結果顯示：（1）知識翻新有助於提升學生的創意氛圍感知；（2）知識翻新英文寫作活動能提升學生的寫作的內容與表現能力；（3）以知識翻新理論為基礎所設計的英文寫作構思活動，能促使學生發想與精進寫作的想法；（4）知識翻新原則取向所進行的教師教學反思，能幫助教師改進與調整其教學信念與教學模式。最後，根據研究結果，本研究提出相關討論與建議，以供後續英文寫作教學及研究之參考。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | Traditional product-oriented English Composition pedagogy tends to focus on the writing results but not the writing processes. Accordingly, traditional learning environment also tends to be teacher-centered, emphasizing teacher’s lectures rather than students’ knowledge construction. Such pedagogy and environment not only restrain students’ development of creativities, but also turn students into passive learners. In contrast, the emphasis of a process of knowledge construction and idea development in a knowledge building environment has provided teachers and students an innovative pedagogy and an alternative learning environment. Therefore, the researcher in this study decided to employ the principle-based knowledge building theory to design more suitable English composition activities, in order to help students learn how to generate writing ideas, develop creative writing capacity, and eventually improve the quality of their English composition. As such, the purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of computer-supported knowledge building activities on high school students’ perception of learning environment and English writing performance. To this end, this research employed a case study and the participants were 39 second grade high school students.\n\n In addition to understanding how students perceived their learning environment and advance their English composition performance, this study further discussed the process and the transformation of writing ideas in three different stages and the condition of teacher reflection during the teaching. The data of this study mainly came from: (1) a knowledge building environment scale; (2) students’ English composition works; (3) the records produced during three ideas generation stages; and (4) the teacher’s teaching reflection. Quantitative and qualitative measures were applied in this study, and data were analyzed through paired-samples t tests, Pearson`s product moment coefficient, descriptive statistics, independent-sample t test, one way ANOVA, and content analysis. \n\n The main findings were as follow: (1) knowledge building activities improved students’ perception of learning environment; (2) English composition activities which were based on knowledge building theory were able to advance students’ writing contents and performance; (3) brainstorming activities assisted students in idea generation, idea improvement, and idea synthesis; (4) teaching reflection affected teacher’s teaching beliefs (from cognitivism to constructivism) and teaching models (from teacher-centered to student-centered). Based on the results, some suggestions and implications were discussed. | en_US |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 第一章 緒論 1\n第一節 研究背景與動機 1\n第二節 研究目的與研究問題 5\n第三節 重要名詞釋義 6\n第四節 研究範圍與限制 8\n第二章 文獻探討 9\n第一節 知識翻新教學 9\n第二節 學習環境感知 17\n第三節 英文寫作教學 21\n第四節 教學反思 26\n第三章 研究方法 31\n第一節 研究設計 31\n第二節 教學設計 33\n第三節 研究流程 46\n第四節 資料來源與分析 47\n第四章 研究結果 55\n第一節 知識翻新活動與學習環境感知 55\n第二節 知識翻新活動與英文寫作表現 60\n第三節 知識翻新活動與學生想法構思 65\n第四節 知識翻新活動與教師教學反思 72\n第五章 結論與建議 82\n第一節 結論 82\n第二節 建議 85\n參考文獻 88\n附錄 96 | zh_TW |
| dc.format.extent | 8622067 bytes | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
| dc.source.uri | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0103152010 | en_US |
| dc.subject | 知識翻新 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 學習環境 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 英文寫作 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 想法構思 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 教學反思 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | knowledge building | en_US |
| dc.subject | learning environment | en_US |
| dc.subject | English composition | en_US |
| dc.subject | idea generation | en_US |
| dc.subject | teaching reflection | en_US |
| dc.title | 電腦輔助知識翻新活動對高中生學習環境感知與英文寫作表現之影響 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Effects of Computer-Supported Knowledge Building Pedagogy on High School Students’ Perception of Learning Environment and English Composition Performance | en_US |
| dc.type | thesis | en_US |
| dc.relation.reference | 壹、中文文獻\n李文玲（2008）。You can write！寫作導引（修訂版）。臺北：三民。\n李建億、朱國光（2007）。數位化學習環境新趨勢。國教之友，58（3），8-16。\n朱致慧（2006）。國民中學藝術與人文領域音樂教師教學反思之個案研究。國立臺北教育大學音樂教育學系研士論文，未出版，臺北市。\n吳正己（2001）。從英特爾e教師計畫談資訊融入教學。資訊與教育雜誌，85：15-21。\n林秀慧（2013）。102年學科能力測驗英文考科非選擇題評分說明。選才通訊，223期。台北：大學入學考試中心。\n林奎宇（2011）。知識創新學習環境量表之編製。國立政治大學教育學系碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。\n林逢祺（2003）。由思維歷程透視教學原理：社威《思維術》方法論之衍釋。教育研究集刊，49（1），1-29。\n施玉惠、朱惠美（1999）。國小英語課程之精神與特色。臺灣教育月刊，582，9。\n徐綺穗（2007）。行動學習理論及其對教師教學的啟示。國教之友，58（3），50-56。\n張春興（2004）。教育心理學：三化取向的理論與實踐（修訂版）。臺北：東華。\n張碧珠（2001）。高中建構取向英文寫作課程之研究。教育部九十學年度行動研究成果報告，臺北：國立新店高中。\n張德銳、李俊達（2011）。教學行動研究中對中學教師教學省思影響之研究。教育研究與發展期刊，7（1），151-178。\n教育部（2003）。創造力教育白皮書－打造創造力國度。2016年4月。取自http://ws.moe.edu.tw/001/Upload/3/RelFile/6315/6934/92.03%E5%89%B5%E9%80%A0%E5%8A%9B%E6%95%99%E8%82%B2%E7%99%BD%E7%9A%AE%E6%9B%B8.pdf\n陳美玉（1999）。教師專業學習與發展。台北：師大書苑。\n湯志民(2006)。學校建築與校園規劃（3版）。臺北：五南。\n黃政傑（1997）。教學原理。台北：師大書苑。\n黃素月（2003），國中國小英語寫作教學之原則。輯於陳秋蘭、廖美玲（主編）（2003），嶄新而實用的英語教學：國中國小英語教學指引（頁97-117）。臺北市：敦煌。\n楊朝祥（2002）。建置學習英語的情境。國家教育論壇，第二卷第六期。\n楊懿麗（2003）。高中英文寫作教學之我見－從大學入學考試英作測驗談起。人文及社會學科教學通訊，14(1)，92-113。\n歐用生（1996）。教師專業成長。台北：師大書苑。\n饒見維 （1996）。教師專業發展：理論與實務。台北：五南。\nGEPT全民英檢網。中級寫作能力測驗分數說明。LTTC財團法人語言訓練測驗中心。(https://www.gept.org.tw/index.asp)\n\n貳、英文文獻\nAger, S. (2016, May 25). Omninglot: Online encyclopedia of writing systems and languages. Retrieved from http://www.omniglot.com/writing/definition.htm\nAlonso, F., Manrique, D., & Martinez, L. (2015). Study of the influence of social relationships among students on knowledge building using a moderately constructivist learning model. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 51(4), 417-439.\nAnderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R.(eds.) (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom`s taxonomy of educational Objectives. New York: Longman\nArslan, R. S. & Sa Aysel, S. K. (2010). How can the use of blog software facilitate the writing process of English language learners? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(3), 183-197.\nBloom, B. S., (ed.). Engelhart, M.D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay\nBruner, J. S. (1960). The Process of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University\nBruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. New York: Norton.\nButke, M. A. (2003). Reflection on practice: A study of five choral educators’ reflective journeys. (Doctoral Dissertation Ohio State University). Dissertation Abstracts International, AAT 3093631.\nChang, F. C., Chang, S. I., & Lee, W. J. (2015). Meanings and values of English Free Writing in a Grade-3 classroom. Journal of Educational Research and Development. 11(2), 61-92\nChen, D. W. (2001). The identity crisis of EFL composition instruction in Taiwan. Paper presented at the 18th Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, Taipei.\nChen, B., Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2015). Advancing knowledge-building discourse through judgments of promising ideas. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10(4), 345-366.\nChien, S. C. (2012). Students’ use of writing strategies and their English writing achievements in Taiwan. Asia Pacific Journal of Education. 32(1), 93-112.\nCollins, A. (1996). Design issues for learning environments. In Vosniadou, S., Corte, E. E., Glaser, R. & Mandl, H. (Eds.). International perspectives on the design of technology-supported learning environments, pp. 347-361. Hisdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.\nCruikshank, D. R. (1985). Uses and benefits of reflective teaching. PhiDelta Kappan, 66(10), 704-706.\nDavis, E. A. & Miyake, N. (2004). Explorations of scaffolding in complex classroom systems. The Journal of the Learning Science, 13, 265-272.\nDeKeyser, R. (1994). Implicit and Explicit Learning of L2 Grammar: A pilot Sudy. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1), 188-194.\nEarthman, G. I. (1998). The impact of school building condition and student achievement, and behavior. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED441329)\nElbow, P. (1973). Writing without teachers. New York: Oxford University Press.\nEngelmann, S., Becker, W.C., Carnine D., & Gersten R. (1988). The direct instructions follow through model: Design and outcomes. Education and Treatment of Children, 11(4), pp. 303-317.\nEvans, W. H., Evans, S. S., & Schmid, R. E. (1989). Behavior and instructional management: An ecological approach. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Inc.\nFischer, R. (1999). Computer applications and research agendas: Another dimension in professional advancement. CALICO Journal, 16(4), 559-571.\nFlower, L. S. & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365-387.\nGibson, J. J. (1966). The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems. Oxford, England: Houghton Mifflin.\nGim, A. J. (2013).The effects of process-oriented English composition instruction on English writing performance. The Jungang Journal of English Language and Literature, 55(3), 115-135.\nHairston, M. (1982). The Winds of Change: Thomas Kuhn and the Revolution in the Teaching of Writing. College Composition and Communication, 33(1), 76-88.\nHargreaves, D. H. (1999). The knowledge-creating school. British Journal of Educational Studies, 47(2), 122-144.\nHayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S., (1983). Uncovering cognitive process in writing: An introduction to protocol analysis. In Mosenthal, Peter, L Tamor, S. A. Walmsley. (eds.) (1983), Research on Writing: Theory and Methods. (New York: Longman), 207-220.\nHong, H.-Y., Chen, F. C., & Chai, C. S. (2011). Teacher-education students’ views about knowledge building theory and practice. Instructional Science, 39(4), 467-482.\nHong, H.-Y., & Sullivan, F. R. (2009). Towards an idea-centered, principle-based design approach to support learning as knowledge creation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(5), 613-627.\nHong, H.-Y., Scardamalia, M., & Zhang, J. (2010). Knowledge society network: Toward a dynamic, sustained network for building knowledge. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 36(1), 1-29.\nHoward, TC (2003). Culturally relevant pedagogy: Ingredients for critical teacher reflection. Theory into Practice, 42(3), 195-202.\nHughey, J. B. (1983). Teaching ESL Composition: Principles and Techniques. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.\nHyun, E. & Marshall, J. D. (1996). Inquiry-oriented reflective supervision for developmentally and culturally appropriate practice. Journal of Curriculum, 11(2), 127-144.\nJones, M. G. & Carter, G. (1998). Small groups and shared constructions. Teaching science for understanding: A human constructivist view. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.\nKim, I. H. (2016). The effects of model writing as the noticing function on Korean secondary school students’ English composition. Studies in Linguistics, 38, 99-123.\nKroll, B. (1991). Teaching Writing in the ESL context. In Marianne Celce-Muricia (Eds.), Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (245-263). Massachusetts: Heinle & Heinle.\nMcArthur, D., Stasz, C. & Zmuidzinas, S. (1990). Tutoring techniques in algebra. Cognition and Instruction, 7, 197-244.\nMena, M. J., Sanchez, E., Tillema, H. H. (2011). Promoting teacher reflection: What is said to be done. Journal of Education for Teaching, 37(1), 21-36.\nMolenaar, L., Roda, C., & van Boxtel, C. (2012). Dynamic scaffolding of socially regulated learning in a computer-based learning environment. Computer & Education, 59(2), 515-523.\nNguyen, T. H., Charity, I., & Robson, A. (2016). Students’’ perception of computer-based learning environments, their attitude towards business statistics, and their academic achievement: implications from a UK university. Studies in Higher Education, 41(4), 734-755.\nPacheco Lora, L. C. (2013). Teacher reflection: support to promote representational change in conceptions and practices of teachers. Zona Próxima, 19. (On-line version ISSN 2145-9444)\nPark, S. & Oliver, J. S. (2008). Revisiting the conceptualization of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as professionals. Research in Science Education, 38(3), 261-284.\nPasch, M., Langer, G., Gardner, T., Starko, A., & Moody, C. (1995). Teaching as decision making. Now York: Longman.\nPollard, A. &Tann, C. S. (1993). Reflective teaching in the primary school: A handbook for the classroom (2nd ed). Landon: Cassell.\nReid, J. M. (1993). Teaching ESL Writing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.\nSawyer, R. K. (2004). Creative teaching: Collaborative discussion as disciplined improvisation. Educational Researcher, 33(2), 12-20.\nSawyer, R. K. (2007). Group genius: The creative power of collaboration. New York: Basic Books. \nScardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society, pp. 67-98. Chicago: Open Court.\nScardamalia, M. (2003). Knowledge building environments: Extending the limits of the possible in education and knowledge work. In A. DiStefano, K. E. Rudestam, &; R. Silverman (Eds.), Encyclopedia of distributed learning, pp. 269-272. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.\nScardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge building. In J.W. Guthrie (Ed.), Encyclopedia of education, pp. 1370-1373. New York: Macmillan Reference.\nScardamalia, M. (2004). CSILE/Knowledge Forum. In A. Kovalchick, & K. Dawson (Eds.), Education and technology: An encyclopedia, pp. 183-192. Santa Barbara, CA.\nScardamalia, M., & Bereiter (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, pp. 97-118.\nSchon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.\nSfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4-13.\nSharples, M., Corlett, D., & Westmancott, O. (2002). The Design and Implementation of a Mobile Learning Resource. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 6(3), pp220-234.\nShih, R. C. (2011). Can Web 2.0 technology assist college students in learning English writing? Integrating Facebook and peer assessment with blended learning. Australasian Journal of Educational technology, 27(5), 829-845.\nShim, K. C. (2011). The effects of the Biology instruction using criticism on the Achievement and learning perception. Biology Education, 39(4), 597-607.\nSmit, K., de Brabander, C. J., & martens, R. L. (2014). Student-centered and teacher-centered learning environment in pre-vocational secondary education: Psychological needs, and motivation. Scandinavian Journal of Educational research, 58(6), 695-712.\nSmyth, J. (1992). Teachers’ work and the politics of reflection. American Educational Research Journal, 29(2), 267-300.\nStahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, pp. 409-426.\nSo, H. J., Seah, L. H., & Toh-Heng, H. L. (2010). Designing collaborative knowledge building environments accessible to all learners: Impacts and design challenges. Computer & Education, 54(2), 479-490.\nTaylor, P. C., & F, B. J. (1991). CLES: An instrument for assessing constructivist learning environment. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Wisconsin, USA.\nTrilling, B., & Hood, P. (1999) Learning technology and education reform in the knowledge age or “We’re sired, sobbed and windowed, now what?” Educational Technology, 39(3), 5-18.\nVen Secker, C. E. & Lissitz, R. W. (1999). Estimating the impact of instructional practices on student achievement in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1110-1126.\nWang, Y. L. & Ellinger, A. D. (2011). Organizational learning perception of external environment and innovation performance, International Journal of Manpower, 32(5-6), 512-536.\nWhite, R., & Arndt, V. (1991). Process Writing. Harlow: Longman.\nZamel, V. (1982). “Writing: the process of discovering meaning.” TESOL Quarterly, 16, 195-209. Also in Long, Michael H. & Jack C. Richards. (eds.), (1987), Methodology in ESOL: A Book of Readings. (Singapore: Harper & Row, publishers), pp.267-278.\nZeichner, K. M. (1983). Alternative paradigms of teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 34(34), 3-9. | zh_TW |
| item.grantfulltext | open | - |
| item.fulltext | With Fulltext | - |
| item.openairetype | thesis | - |
| item.openairecristype | http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_46ec | - |
| item.cerifentitytype | Publications | - |
| Appears in Collections: | 學位論文 | |
Files in This Item:
| File | Size | Format | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 201001.pdf | 8.42 MB | Adobe PDF2 | View/Open |
Google ScholarTM
Check
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.