學術產出-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 運用知識翻新原則培養華語文師資生調適型教學設計取向之個案研究
A case study of developing adaptive pedagogical design orientation among TCSL students by using knowledge building principles作者 吳惠萍
Wu, Hui Ping貢獻者 洪煌堯
吳惠萍
Wu, Hui Ping關鍵詞 知識翻新原則
華語文師資生
教學設計取向
調適型取向
常規型取向
Knowledge building principles
TCSL students
Instructional design orientation
Adaptation-oriented
Routine-oriented日期 2016 上傳時間 1-Mar-2017 17:12:46 (UTC+8) 摘要 近來的研究指出，過往以掌握語言知識規則和模仿優秀教學方法的師資培育方式，已不足以應對全球各異的華語文教學體制和環境。未來世界的華語教師應具備在新情境中學習和解決問題的調適性專長。因此，本研究之目的在於運用知識翻新原則以培養更具有調適型教學設計能力的華語文師資生。本研究採個案研究法，以知識翻新原則設計課程，並以知識論壇平臺作為討論工具，以教案設計、文獻心得、教案互饋等活動，融合知識翻新教育理念，以培養師資生創新取向之教學設計能力。研究歷程中收集之資料包括師資生在知識論壇的貼文內容、教室錄影記錄、訪談的錄音紀錄和教案設計成品，而後採量化與質化分析。研究結果如下：首先，師資生整體教學設計皆朝向更重視「學生中心」的教學信念發展，調整原先設計的教學方法以翻新教案，著重設計出更能讓學生參與的學習活動。在知識翻新原則的引導下，師資生有更具體的學習表現，例如：(1)他們在文獻心得活動中能更顯著減少理論層面的討論，並進而將理論轉化於華語文教學實務上；(2)教案互饋活動中能提出更多與教學方法有關的程序性問題，而非只是詢問與教案設定細節資訊有關的陳述性問題；(3)教案設計活動則大量減少教師講授活動，實踐精講多練的教學原則。其次，在師資生教學設計能力的發展上，研究發現師資生若願意嘗試從學習理論找尋方法，突破原先的教學方式，則會朝向兼顧教學創新與效率的調適型(adaptation-oriented)教學設計取向發展。若只憑靠熟悉的教學經驗，忽略學習理論的助力，抗拒改變，則會朝向常規型(routine-oriented)教學設計取向發展，易成為教書匠。另外，缺乏教學經驗的師資生，雖願意嘗試應用各種學習理論，卻因缺乏經驗而無法達到執行效果，則易成為受挫的新手教師(frustrated novice)。最後，本研究也根據研究結果，再進一步針對知識翻新教育、華語文師資培育單位、華語文教育政策機關提出如何培養出具備調適型教學設計取向師資生等三項具體建議。
Recent research indicates that conventional teaching Chinese as a second language (TCSL) teacher education methods that involve mainly mastering language knowledge and teaching skills and imitating model teachers’ teaching methods have become inadequate to cope with the diverse need from culturally different TCSL systems and environments worldwide. Instead, future TCSL teachers should possess more adaptive disposition and expertise in order for learning and solving problems in new situations.To this end, the purpose of this study is to apply some innovative knowledge building principles to help teacher education students develop more adaptive pedagogical design abilities for TCSL.A case study method was employed in this study. A set of knowledge building principles was adopted for the pedagogical design in this course, and a Knowledge Forum platform was used for online discussion and feedback. Activities including designing a teaching plan, reflecting on literature reading, and providing peer feedback were integrated with knowledge building principles to guide the participating teacher education students to develop more innovation-oriented instructional design abilities. Data collected during the research process included the participants’ discourse content in Knowledge Forum, classroom teaching video records, interview data transcripts, and the teaching plans designed. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were conducted subsequently. The research results are presented as follows.First, the participating teacher education students’ overall instructional design orientation and their teaching beliefs were both moving towards more student-oriented direction. The participants were able to revise their initial instructional design method in their teaching plans to promote more student participation in learning activities. With the guidance of the knowledge building principles, the teacher education students were able to substantially improve their learning outcomes regarding TCSL teaching. For example, during the literature report activity, they greatly reduced discussion on a theoretical level and were able to better translate theories into TCSL teaching practices. During the teaching plan feedback activity, the participants were able to propose more procedure-oriented questions related to teaching methods rather than just declarative-oriented questions concerning only with details in teaching plans. Finally, during the instructional design activity, the participants were also able to minimize lecture-based teaching activities in order to implement the teaching principle of “teach concisely and practice frequently” for the students.Second, the results showed that if the participants are willing to make good use of existing learning theories to revise conventional teaching methods, they will be more likely to develop adaptation-oriented instructional designs that highlight both teaching innovation and efficiency. In contrast, if the participants rely merely on their acquainted teaching experiences and ignore the potential support availed by learning theories, their resistance to change can lead them to adopting more routine-oriented pedagogical designs. Moreover, for those participants who lack teaching experience, although they are willing to apply various learning theories in practice, they typically cannot reach the desired teaching effectiveness and as a result, they become frustrated easily. Based on these research results, suggestions were made regarding how to better cultivate teacher education students’ adaptive pedagogical design abilities for knowledge building education, TCSL teacher training departments, and TCSL education policy departments.參考文獻 1. Carol、Lee、Fung、KBTN Team（2010）。知識建構教師發展網絡計畫。香港：香港大學。2. 牛瑞英（2007）。《社會文化理論與第二語言發展的起源》述介。外語教學與研究，39(4)，314-316。3. 田豔（2010）。 國際漢語課堂教學研究：課堂組織與設計。北京：中央民族大學出版社。4. 任遠（1985）。基礎漢語教材縱橫談。語言教學與研究，2，97-106。5. 全美中小學中文教師協會（2011）。中小學(K - 12)中文教師專業標準。取自http://www.classk12.org/2011/ts.htm 6. 行政院經濟建設委員會（2012）。「黃金十年 國家願景」計畫，取自中華民國行政院網站，網址http://www.ey.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=3D06E532B0D8316C&s=4C2D9CB0DB5E8C7. 宋如瑜（2009）。華語文教學實務。臺北：正中書局股份有限公司。 8. 宋如瑜（2012）。華語教師的教學語言研究─以師資培育為導向（博士論文）。取自台灣博碩士論文知識加值系統，網址http://handle.ncl.edu.tw/11296/ndltd/137883100734563707709. 李允、唐建敏（2015）。社會文化視角下第二語言教師教育對於教師專業發展的啟示—Karen E. Johnson著作解讀。語文學刊：外語教育與教學，(3)，88-90。10. 李戎峴（2013）。華語文師資教育之課程規劃與分析：以臺灣地區十二所研究所為討論範圍。華語學刊，(14)，64-75。11. 李麗君（2006）。檢視師資生教學信念與其實踐之方案實施與成效。國立臺北教育大學學報，19(1)，39-62。12. 李麗君（2006）。檢視師資生教學信念與其實踐之方案實施與成效。臺北教育大學學報：教育類，19(1)，39-62。13. 車正蘭（2011）。對外漢語教師的教學能力研究。吉林省教育學院學報學術版， 27(7)，88-90。14. 屈承熹、紀宗仁（1999）。漢語認知功能語法。臺北：文鶴。15. 林倍伊、林顯達、李佩蓉、詹雯靜、洪國財、洪煌堯（2016）。在不同模式的電腦支援協作學習環境下，師培生理解教學理論層次之差異—以Blackboard和Knowledge Forum為例。資訊社會研究，(31)，66-102。16. 林寶山（2003）。實用教學原理。台北：心理出版社。17. 孫德金（1999）。對外漢語專業教育中語言知識課的定位問題。語言教學與研究，1，30-43。18. 徐小洲、張敏（1997）。杜威對赫爾巴特教育思想的批判與繼承。華東師範大學學報（教育科學版），1，61-67。19. 馬秀麗（2011）。社會文化學理論和第二語言教師教育。華文教學與研究，(4)，40-47。20. 馬豔（2016）。國外第二語言教師教育的社會文化轉向。 英語研究，(1)，132-139。21. 高豔（2008）。從社會文化理論的角度論語言教師的仲介作用。外語教學理論與實踐， 3，93-96。22. 孫強、張軍、周嵐（2016）。認知與社會文化理論視閾下國外語言教師教學信念研究述評。中國外語教育，(3)，67-78。23. 國家漢語國際推廣領導小組辦公室（2007）。國際漢語教師標準。北京：外語教學與研究出版社。24. 張金蘭（2014）。歐亞華語文教學師資培育模式之比較。 臺北教育大學語文集刊，(26)，77-102。25. 教育部（2011）。提供全方位師資、課程 邁向華語文產業輸出大國。教育部電子報，491，2011/12/15，取自http://epaper.edu.tw/topical.aspx?period_num=491&topical_sn=635&page=226. 教育部（2011）。歷年華語文師資國內外任教人數。引自教育部會議文件27. 教育部（2014）。邁向華語文產業輸出大國八年計畫，取自國際與兩岸教育司網站，網址http://ws.moe.edu.tw/001/Upload/7/RelFile/6648/10449/103八年計畫.pdf28. 彭小川（2003）。論精講活練。語言教學與研究，1，44-51。29. 曾慶玉、姚梅林（2011）。建構適應性專長 培養拔尖創新人才。 中國特殊教育，(3)，62-66。30. 黃素惠（2005）。教學設計架構之探析。 教育暨外國語文學報，(1)，10-18。 31. 黃琴扉、劉嘉茹（2010）。經由教學實務的反思探討科學實習教師教學觀點之轉變。臺中教育大學學報數理科技類，24（2），27-47。32. 黃藿（2011）。國際及兩岸教育交流。中華民國教育年報，12，464-513。33. 楊帆、許慶豫（2015）。教師中心與學生中心教學理念辨析—基於中小學教師的問卷調查。高等教育研究，12，78-86。34. 葉玉珠、朱菀瑜（2003）。實習教師信念改變的影響因素之探討。師大學報：教育類，48(1)，41-65。35. 餘亮（2009）。利用資訊技術有效推進基礎教育課程改革－Knowledge Forum案例的啟示。現代遠距離教育，125，33-36。36. 劉學惠（2011）。社會文化理論視角下的外語課堂與語言學習。課程教材教法，7，46-51。37. 錡寶香、林寶貴（2002）。聽覺障礙學童口語述說能力之探討。特殊教育研究學刊，22，127-154。38. 謝幼如（2008）。網路環境下基於問題的協作知識建構活動。第十三屆全國電腦輔助教育(CBE)學術年會論文集。長春：東北師範大學出版社。39. 饒見維（1996）。教師專業發展：理論與實務。臺北：五南，15。40. 顧大維、黃永欣（2011）。Bloom認知與技能教育目標應用於快速數位教材製作流程與設計研究。教育資料與圖書館學，48(4)，511-538。41. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (2006) Executive Summary of the Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century. Alexandria VA: ACTFL. Retrieved from the ACTFL website: http://www.actfl.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3324.42. Anderson, J. R. (1983). A spreading activation theory of memory. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 22(3), 261-295.43. Anderson, J. R. (1990). Cognitive psychology and its implications . New York, NY: Henry Holt & Co.44. Bereiter C, Scardamalia M. (1993) Surpassing ourselves, an inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise ( pp. 77- 119 ). Chicago, IL: Open Court. 45. Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (2003).Learning to work creatively with knowledge.In E.De Corte, L. Verschaffel, N. Entwistle, & J. van Merriënboer (Eds.),Unravelling basic components and dimensions of powerful learning environments ( pp. 55-68 ). Singapore: Institute for Knowledge Innovation and Technology.46. Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.47. Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Book 1: Cognitive domain. New York, NY: David McKay Company.48. Chen, B., & Hong, H. Y. (2016). Schools as knowledge-building organizations: Thirty years of design research. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 266-288.49. Chung, R.F., & Lin, H.C. (1994). Analytic study of the syntactic structures of foreign student’s oral and written production. A Report of the National Science Council. Kaohsiung, Taiwan: National Kaohsiung Normal University.50. Clark, C. M., & Yinger, R. J. (1977). Research on teacher thinking. Curriculum inquiry, 7(4), 279-304.51. Collins, 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.52. Collins, A., & Bielaczyc, K. (1997, March). Dreams of technology-supported learning communities. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Computer-Assisted Instruction (pp. 1-8). Taiwan.53. Conti, G. J. (1989). Assessing teaching style in continuing education. New directions for adult and continuing education, (43), 3-16.54. Crawford, V. M. (2007). Adaptive expertise as knowledge building in science teachers’ problem solving. In: Proceedings of the Second European Cognitive Science Conference, Delphi, Greece. Retrieved http://ctl.sri. com/publications/downloads/Crawford_EuroCogSci07Proceedings.pdf55. Crawford, V. M., Schlager, M., Toyama, Y., Riel, M., & Vahey, P. (2005, April). Characterizing adaptive expertise in science teaching. In annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.56. CTGV.(1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 3, 2-10.57. Cuban, L. (1983). How did teachers teach, 1890-1980. Theory Into Practice, 22(3), 160-165.58. Dick, A. (1996). The Dick and Carey model: Will it survive the decade? Educational Technology Research & Development, 44(3), 55-63.59. Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. Lantolf & G. Appel (eds.), Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Learning Research (pp. 33-56) Norwood, NJ: Ablex.60. Dunkin, M. J., & Biddle, B. J. (1974). The study of teaching. Austin, TX: Holt Rinehart & Winston.61. Dunn, R. S., Dunn, K. J., & Price, G. E. (1989). Learning style inventory (LSI). Mt Laurel, NJ: Price Systems, Incorporated.62. Entwistle, N. (1987). A model of the teaching-learning process. Student learning: Research in education and cognitive psychology ( pp.13-28 ). London ,UK: Open University Press63. Entwistle, N., Skinner, D., Entwistle, D., &; Orr, S. (2000). Conceptions and beliefs about "good teaching:" An integration of contrasting research areas. Higher Education Research &; Development, 19(1), 5-26.64. Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. The nature of intelligence, 12, 231-235.65. Freeman, D. (2002). The hidden side of the work: Teacher knowledge and learning to teach. A perspective from North American educational research on teacher education in English language teaching. Language teaching, 35(01), 1-13.66. Gick, M. L., & Paterson, E. J. (1992). Do contrasting examples facilitate schema acquisition and analogical transfer? Canandian Journal of Psychology, 46 , 539-550.67. Hatano, G. & Inagaki. K. (1986). Two courses of expertise. In H. Stevenson, H. Azuma. & K. Hakuta (Eds.), Child development and education in Japan ( pp. 262-272) . New York, NY: Free man.68. Heimlich, J. E., & Norland, E. (2002). Teaching style: where are we now?. New directions for adult and continuing education, 2002(93), 17-26.69. Hmelo-Silver, C. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235-266.70. Hong, H. Y., & Lin-Siegler, X. (2012). How learning about scientists` struggles influences students` interest and learning in physics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(2), 469.71. Hong, H. Y., & Sullivan, F. R. (2009). An idea-centered, principle-based design approach to support learning as knowledge creation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(5), 613-627.72. Hong, H. Y., &; Lin, S. P. (2010). Teacher-Education Students` Epistemological Belief Change through Collaborative Knowledge Building. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 19(1), 99-110.73. Hong, H. Y., Scardamalia, M., Messina, R., & Teo, C. (2008). Principle-based design to foster adaptive use of technology for building community knowledge. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on International conference for the learning sciences (Vol. 1, pp. 374-381). International Society of the Learning Sciences.74. Huitt, W., & Hummel, J. (2003). Piaget`s theory of cognitive development. Educational psychology interactive, 3(2), 1-5.75. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.76. Johnson, K. E. (2006). The sociocultural turn and its challenges for second language teacher education. Tesol Quarterly, 40(1), 235-257.77. Johnson, K. E. (2009). Second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective. London, UK: Routledge. 78. Johnson, K. E., & Golombek, P. R. (2011). The Transformative Power of Narrative in Second Language Teacher Education. TESOL Quarterly: A Journal for Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages and of Standard English as a Second Dialect, 45(3), 486-509.79. Kagan, D. M. (1992). Implication of research on teacher belief. Educational Psychologist, 27(1), 65-90.80. Koehler, M.J., & Mishra, P. (2005). Teachers learning technology by design. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 21(3), 94-102.81. Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created “social climates”. The Journal of social psychology, 10(2), 269-299.82. Lin, X. D. & Kinzer, C. (2003). Importance of technology for making cultural values explicit. Theory In Practice, 42 (3), 234-242. Retrieved at: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NQM/is_3_42/ai_10844265183. Lin, X.D., Hmelo, C., Kinzer, C., & Secules, T. (1999). Designing technology to support reflection. Educational Technology Research & Development.,47 (3), 43-62.84. Morton, T., & Gray, J. (2010). Personal practical knowledge and identity in lesson planning conferences on a pre-service TESOL course. Language Teaching Research, 14(3), 297-317.85. McCombs, B. & Whistler, J. (1997). The learnercentered classroom and school: Strategies for increasing student motivation and achievement. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers86. McCombs, B. L. (2001). What Do We Know about Learners and Learning? The Learner-Centered Framework: Bringing the Educational System into Balance. Educational Horizons, 79(4), 182-193.87. Nettle, E. B. (1998). Stability and change in the beliefs of student teachers during practice teaching. Teaching and teacher education, 14(2), 193-204.88. Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2002). Epistemological foundations for CSCL: A comparison of three models of innovative knowledge communities. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer-supported collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community: Proceedings of the Computer-Supported Collaborative learning 2002 Conference (pp. 24-32). hillsdale, NJ: LEA.89. Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Models of innovative knowledge communities and three metaphors of learning. Review of educational research, 74(4), 557-576.。90. Pratt, D. D. (1998). The co-ordination of meanings for randomness. For the Learning of Mathematics, 18(3), 2-11. 91. Reigeluth, C. M. (1996). What is instruction-design theory and how is it changing? In Reigeluth, C. (Eds.). Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory ( pp.5-31 ).. Hisdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.92. Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi delta kappan, 60(3), 180.93. Richards, J. C. (2008). Second language teacher education today. RELC journal, 39(2), 158-177.94. Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.95. Samuelowicz, K., &; Bain, J. D. (2001). Revisiting academics` beliefs about teaching and learning. Higher Education, 41, 299-325.96. Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Eds.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp.67-98). Chicago, IL: Open Court. 97. Scardamalia, M. (2004). CSILE/Knowledge forum®. Education and technology: An encyclopedia, 183-192. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. 183-19298. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1987), Knowledge telling and knowledge transforming in Written composition, In Rosenberg, S. (Ed.), Advances in Applied Psycholinguistics Vo.2: Reding, Writing, and Language learning ( pp. 142-175 ). New York, NY: Cambridge Uuiversity Press.99. Scardamalia, M., &; Bereiter, C. (1999). Schools as knowledge building organizations. In D. Keating &; C. Hertzman (Eds.), Today’s children, tomorrow’s society: The developmental health and wealth of nations ( pp. 274-289). New York, NY: Guilford.100. Scardamalia, M., &; Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge building. In Encyclopedia of Education (2nd ed.)(pp. 1370-1373). New York, NY: Macmillan Reference. 101. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 97-118). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 102. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2007). Fostering communities of learners and knowledge building: An interrupted dialogue. In K. E. M. J. C. Campione & A. S. Palincsar (Eds.), (Vol. Children`s learning in the laboratory and in the classroom: Essays in honor of Ann Brown, pp. 197-212). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.103. Schaefer, K. M., & Zygmont, D. (2003). Analyzing the teaching style of nursing faculty: Does it promote a student-centered or teacher-centered learning environment?. Nursing Education Perspectives, 24(5), 238-245.104. Schank, R. C., Berman, T. R. & Macpherson, K. A. (1999). Learning by doing. In Reigeluth, C. (Eds.). Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory ( pp. 161-181). Hisdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.105. Schuh, K. L. (2004). Learner-centered principles in teacher-centered practices? Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(8), 833-846.106. Schwartz, D. L., Bransford, J. D., & Sears, D. (2005). Efficiency and innovation in transfer. Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective ( pp. 1-51 ). Greenwich, CT: IAP.107. Schwartz. D.L., Lin, X.D., Brophy, S., & Bransford, J.D. (1999). Toward the development of flexibly adaptive instructional designs. To appear in C. M. Reigeluth (Eds.), Instructional Design Theories and Models ( Vol. II, pp.183-213 ). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 108. Shavelson, R. J., & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers’ pedagogical thoughts, judgments, decisions, and behavior. Review of educational research, 51(4), 455-498.109. Sim, J., & Wright, C. C. (2005). The kappa statistic in reliability studies: use, interpretation, and sample size requirements. Physical therapy, 85(3), 257.110. Slavin, R. E. (2000). Educational psychology: Theory and practice(6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.111. Stuart, C., & Thurlow, D.(2000). Making it their own: Preservice teachers’ experiences, belief and classroom practices. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(2), 113-140.112. Thorne, J. L. S., & Lantolf, J. P. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford,UK: Oxford University Press113. White, B. Y.; Shimoda, T. A. & Frederiksen, J. R. (1999). Enabling students to construct theories of collaborative inquiry and reflective learning: Computer support for metacognitive development. The International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 10(2); 1-33.114. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100. 描述 博士
國立政治大學
華語文教學博士學位學程
100160502資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1001605021 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 洪煌堯 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) 吳惠萍 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Wu, Hui Ping en_US dc.creator (作者) 吳惠萍 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Wu, Hui Ping en_US dc.date (日期) 2016 en_US dc.date.accessioned 1-Mar-2017 17:12:46 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 1-Mar-2017 17:12:46 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 1-Mar-2017 17:12:46 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G1001605021 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/106874 - dc.description (描述) 博士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 華語文教學博士學位學程 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 100160502 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 近來的研究指出，過往以掌握語言知識規則和模仿優秀教學方法的師資培育方式，已不足以應對全球各異的華語文教學體制和環境。未來世界的華語教師應具備在新情境中學習和解決問題的調適性專長。因此，本研究之目的在於運用知識翻新原則以培養更具有調適型教學設計能力的華語文師資生。本研究採個案研究法，以知識翻新原則設計課程，並以知識論壇平臺作為討論工具，以教案設計、文獻心得、教案互饋等活動，融合知識翻新教育理念，以培養師資生創新取向之教學設計能力。研究歷程中收集之資料包括師資生在知識論壇的貼文內容、教室錄影記錄、訪談的錄音紀錄和教案設計成品，而後採量化與質化分析。研究結果如下：首先，師資生整體教學設計皆朝向更重視「學生中心」的教學信念發展，調整原先設計的教學方法以翻新教案，著重設計出更能讓學生參與的學習活動。在知識翻新原則的引導下，師資生有更具體的學習表現，例如：(1)他們在文獻心得活動中能更顯著減少理論層面的討論，並進而將理論轉化於華語文教學實務上；(2)教案互饋活動中能提出更多與教學方法有關的程序性問題，而非只是詢問與教案設定細節資訊有關的陳述性問題；(3)教案設計活動則大量減少教師講授活動，實踐精講多練的教學原則。其次，在師資生教學設計能力的發展上，研究發現師資生若願意嘗試從學習理論找尋方法，突破原先的教學方式，則會朝向兼顧教學創新與效率的調適型(adaptation-oriented)教學設計取向發展。若只憑靠熟悉的教學經驗，忽略學習理論的助力，抗拒改變，則會朝向常規型(routine-oriented)教學設計取向發展，易成為教書匠。另外，缺乏教學經驗的師資生，雖願意嘗試應用各種學習理論，卻因缺乏經驗而無法達到執行效果，則易成為受挫的新手教師(frustrated novice)。最後，本研究也根據研究結果，再進一步針對知識翻新教育、華語文師資培育單位、華語文教育政策機關提出如何培養出具備調適型教學設計取向師資生等三項具體建議。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) Recent research indicates that conventional teaching Chinese as a second language (TCSL) teacher education methods that involve mainly mastering language knowledge and teaching skills and imitating model teachers’ teaching methods have become inadequate to cope with the diverse need from culturally different TCSL systems and environments worldwide. Instead, future TCSL teachers should possess more adaptive disposition and expertise in order for learning and solving problems in new situations.To this end, the purpose of this study is to apply some innovative knowledge building principles to help teacher education students develop more adaptive pedagogical design abilities for TCSL.A case study method was employed in this study. A set of knowledge building principles was adopted for the pedagogical design in this course, and a Knowledge Forum platform was used for online discussion and feedback. Activities including designing a teaching plan, reflecting on literature reading, and providing peer feedback were integrated with knowledge building principles to guide the participating teacher education students to develop more innovation-oriented instructional design abilities. Data collected during the research process included the participants’ discourse content in Knowledge Forum, classroom teaching video records, interview data transcripts, and the teaching plans designed. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were conducted subsequently. The research results are presented as follows.First, the participating teacher education students’ overall instructional design orientation and their teaching beliefs were both moving towards more student-oriented direction. The participants were able to revise their initial instructional design method in their teaching plans to promote more student participation in learning activities. With the guidance of the knowledge building principles, the teacher education students were able to substantially improve their learning outcomes regarding TCSL teaching. For example, during the literature report activity, they greatly reduced discussion on a theoretical level and were able to better translate theories into TCSL teaching practices. During the teaching plan feedback activity, the participants were able to propose more procedure-oriented questions related to teaching methods rather than just declarative-oriented questions concerning only with details in teaching plans. Finally, during the instructional design activity, the participants were also able to minimize lecture-based teaching activities in order to implement the teaching principle of “teach concisely and practice frequently” for the students.Second, the results showed that if the participants are willing to make good use of existing learning theories to revise conventional teaching methods, they will be more likely to develop adaptation-oriented instructional designs that highlight both teaching innovation and efficiency. In contrast, if the participants rely merely on their acquainted teaching experiences and ignore the potential support availed by learning theories, their resistance to change can lead them to adopting more routine-oriented pedagogical designs. Moreover, for those participants who lack teaching experience, although they are willing to apply various learning theories in practice, they typically cannot reach the desired teaching effectiveness and as a result, they become frustrated easily. Based on these research results, suggestions were made regarding how to better cultivate teacher education students’ adaptive pedagogical design abilities for knowledge building education, TCSL teacher training departments, and TCSL education policy departments. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 1第一節 研究背景 1第二節 研究目的與問題 4第三節 重要名詞釋義 5 壹、華語文師資生 5 貳、知識翻新 6 參、教學設計取向 6第四節 研究範圍與限制 7 壹、研究對象 7 貳、研究時間 7 參、研究方法 8 肆、研究變項 8第二章 文獻探討 9第一節 教師專業發展取向與第二語言教師教育 9 壹、教師專業發展取向 9 貳、第二語言教師教育 13第二節 知識翻新理論與科技 16 壹、以想法為中心：教案設計，學習活動 18 貳、以社群為基礎：知識論壇，互動工具 18 參、以原則作導引：知識翻新，學習策略 19第三節 教師教學信念之類型 25 壹、教學信念：教師中心與學生中心 25 貳、學習觀點：知識習得、參與學習、知識創新 27第三章 研究方法 33第一節 研究對象 33 壹、S1小如背景資料介紹 36 貳、S2小芯背景資料介紹 36 參、S3小萸背景資料介紹 37 肆、S4小琦背景資料介紹 38 伍、S5小筠背景資料介紹 38 陸、S6小釋背景資料介紹 39第二節 知識翻新課程設計與知識論壇 40 壹、實踐者與研究者 40 貳、知識翻新課程設計 40 參、知識論壇 44第三節 研究架構 46 壹、理論基礎 47 貳、知識翻新課程設計 47 參、知識翻新學習活動 48 肆、學習歷程記錄 48 伍、研究結果分析 48第四節 資料蒐集 48 壹、知識論壇的活動記錄 49 貳、訪談問卷與訪談記錄 49 參、課程錄影紀錄 50 肆、教案設計成品 50第五節 資料分析 51 壹、知識論壇平臺活動記錄分析 52 貳、知識論壇貼文內容分析 53 參、訪談錄音編碼 64 肆、教案成品編碼、分類與評分間信度 65第四章 知識翻新課程學習成效之分析與討論 68第一節 知識翻新課程學習成效之分析 69 壹、認知領域：知識論壇貼文 69 貳、技能領域：教案設計活動 75 參、情意領域：課程設計評價 77第二節 知識翻新課程學習成效與課程設計之討論 86 壹、文獻心得活動之結果討論 86 貳、教案互饋活動之結果討論 88 參、文獻心得與教案互饋活動之比較 90 肆、教案設計活動之結果討論 96 伍、知識翻新課程設計之討論 98第五章 師資生教學信念之發展與討論 100第一節 師資生教學信念之發展 100 壹、學習理論 100 貳、調適歷程 123 參、教學特色 142 肆、教學設計 148第二節 師資生教學信念之討論 153 壹、學習理論對於師資生教學設計取向之影響 153 貳、學生中心與教學省思的調適歷程 156 參、建立符合人格特質的教學特色 160 肆、師資生對教學設計的定義與認知 162第六章 結論與建議 164第一節 結論 164 壹、知識翻新課程學習成效與評價 164 貳、研究問題與結果說明 168 參、運用知識翻新原則設計情境學習環境 174 肆、師資生教學信念之發展與變化 178 伍、華語文教師教學設計取向之發展途徑 180第二節 建議 183 壹、知識翻新教育 183 貳、華語文師資培育單位 185 參、華語文教育政策機關 187參考書目 189附錄一：教學設計與科技教育課程大綱 198附錄二：研究歷程圖 201附錄三：師資生對於知識論壇進階功能之使用經驗 203附錄四：師資生對知識翻新課程設計之評價 224 zh_TW dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1001605021 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 知識翻新原則 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 華語文師資生 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 教學設計取向 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 調適型取向 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 常規型取向 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Knowledge building principles en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) TCSL students en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Instructional design orientation en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Adaptation-oriented en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Routine-oriented en_US dc.title (題名) 運用知識翻新原則培養華語文師資生調適型教學設計取向之個案研究 zh_TW dc.title (題名) A case study of developing adaptive pedagogical design orientation among TCSL students by using knowledge building principles en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 1. Carol、Lee、Fung、KBTN Team（2010）。知識建構教師發展網絡計畫。香港：香港大學。2. 牛瑞英（2007）。《社會文化理論與第二語言發展的起源》述介。外語教學與研究，39(4)，314-316。3. 田豔（2010）。 國際漢語課堂教學研究：課堂組織與設計。北京：中央民族大學出版社。4. 任遠（1985）。基礎漢語教材縱橫談。語言教學與研究，2，97-106。5. 全美中小學中文教師協會（2011）。中小學(K - 12)中文教師專業標準。取自http://www.classk12.org/2011/ts.htm 6. 行政院經濟建設委員會（2012）。「黃金十年 國家願景」計畫，取自中華民國行政院網站，網址http://www.ey.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=3D06E532B0D8316C&s=4C2D9CB0DB5E8C7. 宋如瑜（2009）。華語文教學實務。臺北：正中書局股份有限公司。 8. 宋如瑜（2012）。華語教師的教學語言研究─以師資培育為導向（博士論文）。取自台灣博碩士論文知識加值系統，網址http://handle.ncl.edu.tw/11296/ndltd/137883100734563707709. 李允、唐建敏（2015）。社會文化視角下第二語言教師教育對於教師專業發展的啟示—Karen E. Johnson著作解讀。語文學刊：外語教育與教學，(3)，88-90。10. 李戎峴（2013）。華語文師資教育之課程規劃與分析：以臺灣地區十二所研究所為討論範圍。華語學刊，(14)，64-75。11. 李麗君（2006）。檢視師資生教學信念與其實踐之方案實施與成效。國立臺北教育大學學報，19(1)，39-62。12. 李麗君（2006）。檢視師資生教學信念與其實踐之方案實施與成效。臺北教育大學學報：教育類，19(1)，39-62。13. 車正蘭（2011）。對外漢語教師的教學能力研究。吉林省教育學院學報學術版， 27(7)，88-90。14. 屈承熹、紀宗仁（1999）。漢語認知功能語法。臺北：文鶴。15. 林倍伊、林顯達、李佩蓉、詹雯靜、洪國財、洪煌堯（2016）。在不同模式的電腦支援協作學習環境下，師培生理解教學理論層次之差異—以Blackboard和Knowledge Forum為例。資訊社會研究，(31)，66-102。16. 林寶山（2003）。實用教學原理。台北：心理出版社。17. 孫德金（1999）。對外漢語專業教育中語言知識課的定位問題。語言教學與研究，1，30-43。18. 徐小洲、張敏（1997）。杜威對赫爾巴特教育思想的批判與繼承。華東師範大學學報（教育科學版），1，61-67。19. 馬秀麗（2011）。社會文化學理論和第二語言教師教育。華文教學與研究，(4)，40-47。20. 馬豔（2016）。國外第二語言教師教育的社會文化轉向。 英語研究，(1)，132-139。21. 高豔（2008）。從社會文化理論的角度論語言教師的仲介作用。外語教學理論與實踐， 3，93-96。22. 孫強、張軍、周嵐（2016）。認知與社會文化理論視閾下國外語言教師教學信念研究述評。中國外語教育，(3)，67-78。23. 國家漢語國際推廣領導小組辦公室（2007）。國際漢語教師標準。北京：外語教學與研究出版社。24. 張金蘭（2014）。歐亞華語文教學師資培育模式之比較。 臺北教育大學語文集刊，(26)，77-102。25. 教育部（2011）。提供全方位師資、課程 邁向華語文產業輸出大國。教育部電子報，491，2011/12/15，取自http://epaper.edu.tw/topical.aspx?period_num=491&topical_sn=635&page=226. 教育部（2011）。歷年華語文師資國內外任教人數。引自教育部會議文件27. 教育部（2014）。邁向華語文產業輸出大國八年計畫，取自國際與兩岸教育司網站，網址http://ws.moe.edu.tw/001/Upload/7/RelFile/6648/10449/103八年計畫.pdf28. 彭小川（2003）。論精講活練。語言教學與研究，1，44-51。29. 曾慶玉、姚梅林（2011）。建構適應性專長 培養拔尖創新人才。 中國特殊教育，(3)，62-66。30. 黃素惠（2005）。教學設計架構之探析。 教育暨外國語文學報，(1)，10-18。 31. 黃琴扉、劉嘉茹（2010）。經由教學實務的反思探討科學實習教師教學觀點之轉變。臺中教育大學學報數理科技類，24（2），27-47。32. 黃藿（2011）。國際及兩岸教育交流。中華民國教育年報，12，464-513。33. 楊帆、許慶豫（2015）。教師中心與學生中心教學理念辨析—基於中小學教師的問卷調查。高等教育研究，12，78-86。34. 葉玉珠、朱菀瑜（2003）。實習教師信念改變的影響因素之探討。師大學報：教育類，48(1)，41-65。35. 餘亮（2009）。利用資訊技術有效推進基礎教育課程改革－Knowledge Forum案例的啟示。現代遠距離教育，125，33-36。36. 劉學惠（2011）。社會文化理論視角下的外語課堂與語言學習。課程教材教法，7，46-51。37. 錡寶香、林寶貴（2002）。聽覺障礙學童口語述說能力之探討。特殊教育研究學刊，22，127-154。38. 謝幼如（2008）。網路環境下基於問題的協作知識建構活動。第十三屆全國電腦輔助教育(CBE)學術年會論文集。長春：東北師範大學出版社。39. 饒見維（1996）。教師專業發展：理論與實務。臺北：五南，15。40. 顧大維、黃永欣（2011）。Bloom認知與技能教育目標應用於快速數位教材製作流程與設計研究。教育資料與圖書館學，48(4)，511-538。41. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (2006) Executive Summary of the Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century. Alexandria VA: ACTFL. Retrieved from the ACTFL website: http://www.actfl.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3324.42. Anderson, J. R. (1983). A spreading activation theory of memory. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 22(3), 261-295.43. Anderson, J. R. (1990). Cognitive psychology and its implications . New York, NY: Henry Holt & Co.44. Bereiter C, Scardamalia M. (1993) Surpassing ourselves, an inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise ( pp. 77- 119 ). Chicago, IL: Open Court. 45. Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (2003).Learning to work creatively with knowledge.In E.De Corte, L. Verschaffel, N. Entwistle, & J. van Merriënboer (Eds.),Unravelling basic components and dimensions of powerful learning environments ( pp. 55-68 ). Singapore: Institute for Knowledge Innovation and Technology.46. Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.47. Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Book 1: Cognitive domain. New York, NY: David McKay Company.48. Chen, B., & Hong, H. Y. (2016). Schools as knowledge-building organizations: Thirty years of design research. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 266-288.49. Chung, R.F., & Lin, H.C. (1994). Analytic study of the syntactic structures of foreign student’s oral and written production. A Report of the National Science Council. Kaohsiung, Taiwan: National Kaohsiung Normal University.50. Clark, C. M., & Yinger, R. J. (1977). Research on teacher thinking. Curriculum inquiry, 7(4), 279-304.51. Collins, 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.52. Collins, A., & Bielaczyc, K. (1997, March). Dreams of technology-supported learning communities. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Computer-Assisted Instruction (pp. 1-8). Taiwan.53. Conti, G. J. (1989). Assessing teaching style in continuing education. New directions for adult and continuing education, (43), 3-16.54. Crawford, V. M. (2007). Adaptive expertise as knowledge building in science teachers’ problem solving. In: Proceedings of the Second European Cognitive Science Conference, Delphi, Greece. Retrieved http://ctl.sri. com/publications/downloads/Crawford_EuroCogSci07Proceedings.pdf55. Crawford, V. M., Schlager, M., Toyama, Y., Riel, M., & Vahey, P. (2005, April). Characterizing adaptive expertise in science teaching. In annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.56. CTGV.(1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 3, 2-10.57. Cuban, L. (1983). How did teachers teach, 1890-1980. Theory Into Practice, 22(3), 160-165.58. Dick, A. (1996). The Dick and Carey model: Will it survive the decade? Educational Technology Research & Development, 44(3), 55-63.59. Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. Lantolf & G. Appel (eds.), Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Learning Research (pp. 33-56) Norwood, NJ: Ablex.60. Dunkin, M. J., & Biddle, B. J. (1974). The study of teaching. Austin, TX: Holt Rinehart & Winston.61. Dunn, R. S., Dunn, K. J., & Price, G. E. (1989). Learning style inventory (LSI). Mt Laurel, NJ: Price Systems, Incorporated.62. Entwistle, N. (1987). A model of the teaching-learning process. Student learning: Research in education and cognitive psychology ( pp.13-28 ). London ,UK: Open University Press63. Entwistle, N., Skinner, D., Entwistle, D., &; Orr, S. (2000). Conceptions and beliefs about "good teaching:" An integration of contrasting research areas. Higher Education Research &; Development, 19(1), 5-26.64. Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. The nature of intelligence, 12, 231-235.65. Freeman, D. (2002). The hidden side of the work: Teacher knowledge and learning to teach. A perspective from North American educational research on teacher education in English language teaching. Language teaching, 35(01), 1-13.66. Gick, M. L., & Paterson, E. J. (1992). Do contrasting examples facilitate schema acquisition and analogical transfer? Canandian Journal of Psychology, 46 , 539-550.67. Hatano, G. & Inagaki. K. (1986). Two courses of expertise. In H. Stevenson, H. Azuma. & K. Hakuta (Eds.), Child development and education in Japan ( pp. 262-272) . New York, NY: Free man.68. Heimlich, J. E., & Norland, E. (2002). Teaching style: where are we now?. New directions for adult and continuing education, 2002(93), 17-26.69. Hmelo-Silver, C. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235-266.70. Hong, H. Y., & Lin-Siegler, X. (2012). How learning about scientists` struggles influences students` interest and learning in physics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(2), 469.71. Hong, H. Y., & Sullivan, F. R. (2009). An idea-centered, principle-based design approach to support learning as knowledge creation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(5), 613-627.72. Hong, H. Y., &; Lin, S. P. (2010). Teacher-Education Students` Epistemological Belief Change through Collaborative Knowledge Building. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 19(1), 99-110.73. Hong, H. Y., Scardamalia, M., Messina, R., & Teo, C. (2008). Principle-based design to foster adaptive use of technology for building community knowledge. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on International conference for the learning sciences (Vol. 1, pp. 374-381). International Society of the Learning Sciences.74. Huitt, W., & Hummel, J. (2003). Piaget`s theory of cognitive development. Educational psychology interactive, 3(2), 1-5.75. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.76. Johnson, K. E. (2006). The sociocultural turn and its challenges for second language teacher education. Tesol Quarterly, 40(1), 235-257.77. Johnson, K. E. (2009). Second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective. London, UK: Routledge. 78. Johnson, K. E., & Golombek, P. R. (2011). The Transformative Power of Narrative in Second Language Teacher Education. TESOL Quarterly: A Journal for Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages and of Standard English as a Second Dialect, 45(3), 486-509.79. Kagan, D. M. (1992). Implication of research on teacher belief. Educational Psychologist, 27(1), 65-90.80. Koehler, M.J., & Mishra, P. (2005). Teachers learning technology by design. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 21(3), 94-102.81. Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created “social climates”. The Journal of social psychology, 10(2), 269-299.82. Lin, X. D. & Kinzer, C. (2003). Importance of technology for making cultural values explicit. Theory In Practice, 42 (3), 234-242. Retrieved at: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NQM/is_3_42/ai_10844265183. Lin, X.D., Hmelo, C., Kinzer, C., & Secules, T. (1999). Designing technology to support reflection. Educational Technology Research & Development.,47 (3), 43-62.84. Morton, T., & Gray, J. (2010). Personal practical knowledge and identity in lesson planning conferences on a pre-service TESOL course. Language Teaching Research, 14(3), 297-317.85. McCombs, B. & Whistler, J. (1997). The learnercentered classroom and school: Strategies for increasing student motivation and achievement. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers86. McCombs, B. L. (2001). What Do We Know about Learners and Learning? The Learner-Centered Framework: Bringing the Educational System into Balance. Educational Horizons, 79(4), 182-193.87. Nettle, E. B. (1998). Stability and change in the beliefs of student teachers during practice teaching. Teaching and teacher education, 14(2), 193-204.88. Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2002). Epistemological foundations for CSCL: A comparison of three models of innovative knowledge communities. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer-supported collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community: Proceedings of the Computer-Supported Collaborative learning 2002 Conference (pp. 24-32). hillsdale, NJ: LEA.89. Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Models of innovative knowledge communities and three metaphors of learning. Review of educational research, 74(4), 557-576.。90. Pratt, D. D. (1998). The co-ordination of meanings for randomness. For the Learning of Mathematics, 18(3), 2-11. 91. Reigeluth, C. M. (1996). What is instruction-design theory and how is it changing? In Reigeluth, C. (Eds.). Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory ( pp.5-31 ).. Hisdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.92. Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi delta kappan, 60(3), 180.93. Richards, J. C. (2008). Second language teacher education today. RELC journal, 39(2), 158-177.94. Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.95. Samuelowicz, K., &; Bain, J. D. (2001). Revisiting academics` beliefs about teaching and learning. Higher Education, 41, 299-325.96. Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Eds.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp.67-98). Chicago, IL: Open Court. 97. Scardamalia, M. (2004). CSILE/Knowledge forum®. Education and technology: An encyclopedia, 183-192. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. 183-19298. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1987), Knowledge telling and knowledge transforming in Written composition, In Rosenberg, S. (Ed.), Advances in Applied Psycholinguistics Vo.2: Reding, Writing, and Language learning ( pp. 142-175 ). New York, NY: Cambridge Uuiversity Press.99. Scardamalia, M., &; Bereiter, C. (1999). Schools as knowledge building organizations. In D. Keating &; C. Hertzman (Eds.), Today’s children, tomorrow’s society: The developmental health and wealth of nations ( pp. 274-289). New York, NY: Guilford.100. Scardamalia, M., &; Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge building. In Encyclopedia of Education (2nd ed.)(pp. 1370-1373). New York, NY: Macmillan Reference. 101. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 97-118). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 102. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2007). Fostering communities of learners and knowledge building: An interrupted dialogue. In K. E. M. J. C. Campione & A. S. Palincsar (Eds.), (Vol. Children`s learning in the laboratory and in the classroom: Essays in honor of Ann Brown, pp. 197-212). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.103. Schaefer, K. M., & Zygmont, D. (2003). Analyzing the teaching style of nursing faculty: Does it promote a student-centered or teacher-centered learning environment?. Nursing Education Perspectives, 24(5), 238-245.104. Schank, R. C., Berman, T. R. & Macpherson, K. A. (1999). Learning by doing. In Reigeluth, C. (Eds.). Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory ( pp. 161-181). Hisdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.105. Schuh, K. L. (2004). Learner-centered principles in teacher-centered practices? Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(8), 833-846.106. Schwartz, D. L., Bransford, J. D., & Sears, D. (2005). Efficiency and innovation in transfer. Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective ( pp. 1-51 ). Greenwich, CT: IAP.107. Schwartz. D.L., Lin, X.D., Brophy, S., & Bransford, J.D. (1999). Toward the development of flexibly adaptive instructional designs. To appear in C. M. Reigeluth (Eds.), Instructional Design Theories and Models ( Vol. II, pp.183-213 ). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 108. Shavelson, R. J., & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers’ pedagogical thoughts, judgments, decisions, and behavior. Review of educational research, 51(4), 455-498.109. Sim, J., & Wright, C. C. (2005). The kappa statistic in reliability studies: use, interpretation, and sample size requirements. Physical therapy, 85(3), 257.110. Slavin, R. E. (2000). Educational psychology: Theory and practice(6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.111. Stuart, C., & Thurlow, D.(2000). Making it their own: Preservice teachers’ experiences, belief and classroom practices. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(2), 113-140.112. Thorne, J. L. S., & Lantolf, J. P. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford,UK: Oxford University Press113. White, B. Y.; Shimoda, T. A. & Frederiksen, J. R. (1999). Enabling students to construct theories of collaborative inquiry and reflective learning: Computer support for metacognitive development. The International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 10(2); 1-33.114. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100. zh_TW
