研究生: |
黃琇琳 Huang Hsiu-Lin |
---|---|
論文名稱: |
高中學生英文科學習經驗之研究 The Research of Senior High School Students’English Learning Experience |
指導教授: |
湯仁燕
Tang, Ren-Yen |
學位類別: |
碩士 Master |
系所名稱: |
課程與教學研究所 Graduate Institute of Curriculum and Instruction |
論文出版年: | 2015 |
畢業學年度: | 103 |
語文別: | 中文 |
論文頁數: | 170 |
中文關鍵詞: | 高中生 、英文科 、學生經驗 |
英文關鍵詞: | Senior high school student, English, Learning experience |
論文種類: | 學術論文 |
相關次數: | 點閱:181 下載:12 |
分享至: |
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報 |
本研究旨在了解高中生的英文科觀點與學習經驗,是以學生對教師教學、教學內容及學習評量等面向的經驗與想法,並以此探討影響學生英文科學習經驗的因素,分析學生如何與英文學習過程中的人事物互動,形成個人獨特的學習經驗。
本研究採取質性取徑,透過參與觀察、訪談與文件分析等方法蒐集資料,研究場域為新北市一所公立高中,研究參與者為高二學生,共40位。
根據研究發現,本研究結論如下:
一、學生認為英文是實用且學習價值性高的科目,是永久性的能力與國際接軌的
語言工具,但實際英文科學習經驗卻囿於學科的框架與學生觀點想法相悖。
二、學生感受到教師全英文教學對學習有益,但仍側重認知層面的學習且以講述
方式呈現課程重點,導致全英文教學脫離日常生活溝通情境的使用與脈絡。
三、學生個人豐富的英文學習經驗是來自於多方面學習歷程與管道所形塑,學生
本身即是課程設計者與安排者,但為因應學科考試,課堂多仰賴教師的重點整理,易形成被動的學習型態與個人豐富的英文學習經驗被忽視。
四、學生認為英文教科書不夠真實鮮活,難與生活連結及引起情感性共鳴,但閱
讀新聞時事與雜誌可彌補不足,故英文教科書宜兼顧知識性與實用性的傳遞。
五、學生認為高中英文科評量範圍應適量,且項目有偏頗缺少口說實作,方式不
夠多元創新,壓抑主體思考的可能性與造成學生學習挫折感,如何破除為升學而評量的迷思是當前重要課題。
六、高中學生英文科學習經驗是學生與學習情境的人事物等多者交互作用影響之
下的產物,每種因素皆影響著學生對高中英文科學習的思考、行為與態度。
The purpose of this study is to understand senior high school students’ English perspective and learning experience which lies in instruction, teaching material, and assessment. Then to discuss the factors that affect students’ English learning experience, to analyze how student form into personal learning experience by interacting with people, affair, and matter in English learning process.
The study applied qualitative research method and collected data through participant observation, interview and document analysis. This study involved 40 second grade students of senior high school in New Taipei City.
The findings of the research have led to the conclusion as follows:
1. Students thought that English is a practical and high learning value subject, it’s a permanent ability and a language tool that can connect to the world. But students’ actual English learning experience still hard to escape from academic discipline and adverse to students’ perspective.
2. Students felt that teacher constructed all English teaching was beneficial for learning, but still placed emphasis on cognition part, presented the core of curriculum by didactic instruction. It caused all English teaching separated from communication application in daily life and context.
3. Students’ personal plentiful English learning experience came from learning processes and channels in many aspects. Students as curriculum designers and planners by themselves. In order to respond to The General Scholastic Ability Test, they depended on the sorted main points or ideas by teachers. It caused passive learning styles and personal wealth of English learning experience to be ignored.
4. Student considered that the context of English textbook was not authentic and vivid enough, so it was hard to connect with students’ livelihood and evoked students’ emotional resonance. Through reading the news, current affairs and magazine can compensate for the lack. Therefore, the context of English textbook should take into account transferring of knowledge and practicality.
5. Students thought that the range of English assessment should be appropriated, the items had a biased that short of oral presentation, the methods were not innovative and diverse enough. It had the possibility of inhibiting students’ subject thinking and caused students’ learning frustration, so how to eliminate the myth of assessing for general scholastic ability test is the first priority.
6. Senior high school students’ English learning experience is the product of students’ interacting with people, event and matter in learning environment. Each factor affecting students’ English learning, behavior and attitude in senior high school.
中文部分
方德隆(2004)。課程基礎理論。臺北市:培生。
王文科、王文智(2008)。教育研究法。臺北市:五南。
白瑩潔(2007)。學生的課程詮釋──以建中人文社會科學資優班學生為例(未出版碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學教育學系,臺北市。
余民寧(2011)。教育測驗與評量:成就測驗與教學評量(第三版)。臺北市,心理。
吳木崑(2009)。杜威經驗哲學對課程與教學之啟示。臺北市立教育大學學報,40(1)35-54。
吳玉汝(2006)國中學生對英語課的詮釋──一個班級的民族誌研究(未出版碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學教育學系,臺北市。
宋秋美(2005)。國小實施溝通式英語教學之行動研究──以四年級學生為例(未出版碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學教育學系,臺北市。
宋健誌(2014)。國中生公民科學習經驗之探究──學為公民?(未出版碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學教育學系,臺北市。
宋淑英(2002)。檔案式評量對高中生英文學習之效益研究(未出版碩士論文)。國立高雄師範大學英語系,高雄市。
李政釗(2011)。升學主義與文憑主義的政治經濟分析:美、日、台個案研究(未出版碩士論文)。東吳大學政治學系,臺北市。
李政賢、廖志恒、林靜如譯(2008)。質性研究導論(Qualitative Sozialforschung)。原著:U. Flick。臺北市:五南。
汪微萍、許殷宏(2009)。我喜歡英語課,但不喜歡英語--當「師生互動」遇上「學習興趣」。教育研究月刊,182,56-70。
車蓓群(主編)(2013)。普通高級中學英文(3-4冊)。臺北市,三民。
林志彥(2002)。以「學習者為主體」的觀點探究學生心目中理想的生物教學。科學教育,246,49-52。
林佩璇(1991)。合作學習的實施。研習資訊,8(5),29-34。
林金葉(2012)。臺北市市公立高中學生對公民與社會科的課程詮釋(未出版碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學公民教育與活動領導學系,臺北市。
武曉梅(2004)。成人學生的補校教育觀:一個國小補校班級的民族誌研究(未出版碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學社會教育研究所,臺北市。
施玉惠(1991)。外國語文教學研究。台北:幼獅文化。
施玉惠、朱惠美(1999)。國小英語課程之精神與特色。教育研究資訊,7(2),1-5。
桂竹青(2014)。國中學業低成就學生之學校生活經驗研究:以「陪讀」學生為例(未出版碩士論文)。國立臺南大學教育學系教育經營與管理研究所,台南市。
高中生考多益 拚甄選入學加分(2015,2月)。中時電子報。取自
http://www.chinatimes.com/realtimenews/20150211002282-260405
張武昌(1997)。新編國中英語教材簡介──以必修第一冊爲例。英語教學,22(1),18-28。
張武昌(2006)。台灣的英語教育: 現況與省思。教育資料與研究雙月刊,69,129-144。
張郡雯、林文瑛(2003)。升學主義還是升學機會?升學壓力的社會意涵。教育心理學報,35(2),167-182。
教育部(2008)。普通高級中學必修科目「英文」課程綱要。臺北市:作者。
梁雲霞譯(2008)。J. Goodlad著。一個稱為學校的地方(A Place Called School)
台北:聯經。(國科會經典譯注)。國科會研究成果語文著作專利出版
(NSC94-2420-H-133-001)。
莊采珂(1999)。多元文化課程方案的實施──學生經驗課程之研究(未出版碩士論文)。國立花蓮師範學院多元文化研究所,花蓮縣。
許多校系明年指考大變革,不採計國文,但是英文必須要考到A級以上(2014,10月26日)。聯合報,C2版。
許殷宏(1999)。師生互動策略之探究。中等教育,50(6),62-80。
許雯琳(2006)。任務導向雙語週報閱讀計畫對高中生英語讀寫能力之效益研究(未出版碩士論文)。國立高雄師範大學英語學系,高雄市。
陳木金(2007)。資料分析方法在教育研究的應用。2014年11月30日,取http://www3.nccu.edu.tw/~mujinc/teaching/introduction/part2-refer2.pdf。
陳向明(2009)。社會科學質的研究。臺北市:五南。
陳其玲(2012)。高中學生和教師對於〈普通高級中學英文科課程綱要〉能力指標的看法(未出版碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學英語系,臺北市。
陳保朱(譯)(2002)。為什麼孩子要上學。(原作者:大江健三郎)。臺北市:時報。
陳奎憙(2001)。教育社會學導論。臺北市,師大書苑。
程玉秀、葉錫南、蘇順發(2011)。九十九年《普通高級中學英文科課程綱要》 之規劃,實施與預期效果:教師觀點。英語教學期刊,35(2),91-137。
黃武雄(2003)。童年與解放衍本(教改二十週年紀念版)。臺北市:左岸文化。
黃政傑(2013)。教改應重實效-傾聽高中學生談教改有感。師友月刊,555,0-4。
黃瑞琴(1991)。質的教育研究方法。臺北市:心理。
黃瑞琴(2008)。質的教育研究方法。臺北市:心理。
黃鈺雯(2004)。嘉義地區國小高年級教師教學態度、師生互動與學生學習動機之關係研究(未出版碩士論文)。國立嘉義大學國民教育研究所。
黃燦遂(1999)。高中英文教科書的選擇。英語教學,23(3),1-6。
黃鴻文(2003)。國民中學學生文化之民族誌研究。臺北市:學富。
黃鴻文、湯仁燕(2005)。學生如何詮釋學校課程?教育研究集刊,51(2),99-131。
楊存莉、郭玲均、曾舜慈、張蕙芬(2011)。高中職英語教師多元評量實施現況之研究:以台中縣市為例。弘光學報,64,111-125。
楊智穎、陳怡玲(2013)。國小弱勢學生課後補救教學實施下的學生經驗課程研究。載於課程實踐與教學創新。國立屏東教育大學。
葉錫南(2008)。高中英文科新課程綱要之修訂理念與特色。教育研究月刊,166(2),25-32。
廖婉雯(2003)。高中英語教師對溝通式教學法的教學信念及其教學行為之探究(未出版碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學英語系,臺北市。
廖曉青(2007)。英語教育學。臺北市:心理。
劉美慧(2000)。多元文化課程方案的實施,不同文化脈絡的運作課程與經驗課
程之研究。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究成果報告(編號:NSC 89-2413-H-026-005)。
劉國兆(2013)。升學主義、學校生活與課後補習:一群七年級國中生的課程觀。教育研究學報,47(2),73-98。
歐陽教(2013)。蛙教書。載於林逢祺、洪仁進(主編),教育哲學:隱喻篇(頁21-32)。臺北市:學富。
潘慧玲(2015)。教育論文格式二版。臺北市:雙葉。
蔡碧夆(2008)。升學氛圍下國中學生的課程觀:一個班級的民族誌研究(未出版碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學教育研究所,臺北市。
蔡蔚群(2005)。世界大不同:學生眼中的學科能力測驗。東吳歷史學報,14,253-285。
鄭文芳(2004)。高中生歷史科課堂經驗之探討。課程與教學季刊,7(2),135-153。
蕭若綺(2009)。在英文課堂中利用互惠式教學法提昇臺灣高中生思考之研究(未出版碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學英語系,臺北市。
謝小芩、范信賢(1999)。九年一貫課程中的學生主體性。載於中華民國課程與教學學會(主編),九年一貫課程之展望(頁127-143)。臺北市:揚智。
英文部分
Becker, H. S., Geer, B., Hughes, E. C., & Strauss, A. L. (1961). Boys in white: Student culture in medical school. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Brophy, J. E. (1982). How teacher influence what is taught and learned in classroom. The elementary School Journal, 83(1), 1-13.
Cullingford, C. (1991). The inner world of the school: Children’s ideas about schools. London: Cassell Educational Limited.
Dadour, E. S., & Robbins, J. (1996). University-level studies using strategy instruction
to improve speaking ability in Egypt and Japan. In Oxford, R. L. (Ed.), Language learning strategies around the world: Cross-cultural perspectives. (pp. 157-166). Honolulu, Hawaii: Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Davies, A., Grove, E & Wilkes, M. (1997), “Review of Literature on Acquiring Literacy
in a Second Language”, in P. McKay, A. Davies, B. Devlin, J. Clayton, R, Oliver & S. Zammit (project team), The Bilingual Interface Project Report, DEETYA, Commonwealth of Australia.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: The Macmillan Company.
Elmore, R. & Sykes, G. (1992). Curriculum policy. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 185-215). New York: Macmillan.
Erickson, F., Bagrodia, R., Cook-Sather, A., Espinoza, M., Jurow, S., Shultz, J. J., &
Spencer, J. (2008). Students’ Experiences of School Curriculum: The Everyday Circumstances of Granting and Withholding Assent to Learn. In F. M. Connelly (Ed.), The Sage handbook of curriculum and instruction. (pp. 198-218). Los Angles, CA: Sage.
Erikson, F. & Shultz, J. (1992). Students’ experience of the curriculum. In P. W. Jackson
(Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum: A project of the American Educational Research Association (pp. 465-485). New York: Macmillan.
Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change. Routledge.
Galloway, M., Pope, D., & Osberg, J. (2007). Stressed-out students-SOS: Youth perspectives on changing school climates. In D. Thiessen (Ed.), International handbook of student experience in elementary and secondary school (pp.611-634). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Gibson, M. A. (1987). Punjabi immigrants in an American high school. In G. B.
Spindler & L. S. Spindler (Eds.), interpretive ethnography of education at home and abroad (pp. 281-312). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Goldman, S., & McDermott, R. (1987). The culture of competition in American schools.
Education and cultural process: Anthropological approaches.
Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A Place Called School. Prospects for the Future. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Goodlad, J. I. (1969). The Schools vs. Education. Saturday Review, 52(16), 59-61,80-82.
Hodgkin, R. (1998). Partnership with pupils. Children UK (summer), 17(11).
Holland, D. C., & Eisenhart, M. A. (1990). Educated in romance: Women, achievement, and college culture. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Klein, M. F. (1991). A conceptual framework for curriculum decision making. In M. F. Klein (Ed.), The politics of curriculum decision-making: Issues in centralizing the curriculum. New York: Sunny Press.
Langness, L. L., & Frank, G. (1981). Lives: An anthropological approach to biography. Novato, CA: Chandler & Sharp.
Levin, B. (2000) Putting students at the center of education reform. Journal of Education change, 1(2):155-172.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry: Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
McKnight, A. (1994), “Chinese Learners of English: A Different View of Literary?” Open Letter, Australian Journal for Adult Literacy Research and Practice, pp.39-52.
Morgan-Fleming, B. & Doyle, W. (1997). Children’s interpretations of curriculum events. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13, 499-511.
Ogbu, J. U. (1991). Low school performance as an adaptation: The case of blacks in
Stockton, California. In M. A. Gibson & J. U. Ogbu (Eds.), Minority status and
schooling: A comparative study of immigrant and involuntary minorities (pp. 249-286). New York: Garland.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Phelan, P., Davidson, L. & H, Cao. (1992). Speaking up: Students ‘perspectives on
school. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(9), 695-704.
Pollard, A. (1997). Playing the system: Pupil perspectives of curriculum, assessment and pedagogy. In Croll, P. (ed.) Teachers, pupil and primary schooling: Continuity and Change (pp.119-133). London: Cassell.
Pollard, A., Thiessen, D., & Filer, A. (2002). Children and their curriculum: The perspectives primary and elementary school children. Washington, D.C.: The
Falmer.
Pope, D. C. (1999). Doing school: Successful students ‘experiences of the high school curriculum. Ann Arbor, Mich: UMI.
Rogers, V. (1989). Assessing the curriculum experienced by children. Phi Delta Kappan,70(9), 714 –717.
Rudduck, J. (1996) .Going to 'the big school': the turbulence of transition. In Rudduck, J., Chaplain, R., & Wallace, G. (Eds.) School Improvement: What Can Pupils Tell
Us? London, David Fulton Publishers. Rudduck, J. (2002). Consulting Pupils: What’s in it for Schools? London: Routledge
Falmer
Rudduck, J. (2007). Student voice, student engagement, and school reform. In D.
Thiessen (Ed.), International handbook of student experience in elementary and
secondary school (pp. 587-610). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Rudduck, J., Chaplain, R. P., & Wallace, G. (1996). School improvement: what can pupils tell us? London: Fulton.
Rudduck, J., & Flutter, J. (2000). Pupil participation and perspective: Carving a new order of experience. Cambridge Journal of Education, 30, 75-89.
Schwab, J. J. (1983). The practical 4: Something for curriculum professors to do. Curriculum Inquiry, 13(3), 239-265.
Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participation observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Thiessen, D. (2007). Researching student experiences in elementary and secondary
school: An evolving field of study. In D. Thiessen (Ed.), International handbook of student experience in elementary and secondary school (pp. 1-76). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Willis, P. (1977). Learning to labor: How working class kids get working class jobs. New York: Columbia University Press.
Wilson, B., & Corbett, D. (2007). Students’ perspectives on good teaching: Implications for adult reform behavior. In D. Thiessen (Ed.), International handbook of student experience in elementary and secondary school (pp.283-311). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.