國立臺灣師範大學博碩士論文全文系統

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	吳佳穎 Chia-ying Wu
論文名稱：	高中英語資優班課程評估之個案研究 The Evaluation of the Senior High School English-Talented Curriculum: A Case Study
指導教授：	葉錫南 Yeh, Hsi-Nan
學位類別：	碩士 Master
系所名稱：	英語學系 Department of English
論文出版年：	2007
畢業學年度：	95
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	163
中文關鍵詞：	英語資優課程、課程評估
英文關鍵詞：	English-talented curriculum, program evaluation
論文種類：	學術論文
相關次數：	點閱：263 下載：82
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

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

本研究旨在探討高中英語資優班課程調整對學生聽、說、讀、寫各項能力之影響，以及他們對資優課程調整的滿意程度與接受普通英語課程之學生是否有差異。研究對象來自台北市某所設有英語資優班之高中，共48名學生參與，其中24名學生接受英語資優課程，另外24名學生則接受普通英語課程。採用的研究工具包括：英語能力測驗以及英語學習問卷。另外，有9名接受英語資優課程之學生接受深度訪談。研究資料採用共變數分析(ANCOVA)、描述性統計、t考驗，以及質性分析。研究結果發現如下：
一、在接受英語資優課程調整後，學生在英語聽、讀方面，與接受普通英語課程之學生有顯著差異。此外課程調整對於學生在外語學習之溝通能力、自信心、興趣皆有正面影響。同時，課程調整也增進了學生對於文學作品賞析之能力。
二、在英語說、寫能力方面，資優課程比起普通課程更具顯著成效。英語資優課程中的小組教學增加學生練習英語的機會。外籍老師授課，以及高層次思考、互動式的教學活動，增進了學生使用外語表達之動機。寫作技巧與自我訂正能力之訓練，培養了學生的寫作能力。
三、接受英語資優課程之學生，在課程與教學、學習機會與環境、學習成效各方面之滿意程度，都優於接受普通英語課程之學生。英語資優課程提供學生適
度的挑戰、充足的學習機會、深入的文學賞析，以及鼓勵學生自主學習；然而，在高層思考、獨立思考、解決問題能力，以及刺激求知慾…等方面，英語資優課程仍有改善空間。最後，雖然英語資優課程讓學生具備較佳的語言
能力與學習態度，卻沒能對學生的自我認同、學習成就感、學習樂趣有顯著影響。
本論文研究結果證實，資優課程調整有其必要性，無論是充實課程或是加速教學，皆比普通課程更能滿足資優生。本研究同時建議，英語資優班教師須提供適度的課程挑戰，以激發學生潛力。再者除了正規課程之外，學校也可增加更彈性的教學安排如，研討會、資源教室、專題研究、競賽活動、暑假營隊、出國遊學以及遠距離教學…等，以幫助資優學生多元學習。

This study attempts to investigate the effects of differentiated curriculum provided by an English-talented program on students’ listening and reading comprehension, speaking and writing proficiency, as well as their satisfaction levels and perceptions of this program. Research instruments administrated in the study included pretests and posttests, an evaluation questionnaire, and an interview. A total of forty-eight students participated in the study, while half of them were from the target English-talented program, the other half of them from a regular English program. Nine of the participants from the English-talented program were further interviewed after their completion of the evaluation questionnaire. Statistical procedures, including analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and paired t-test, as well as qualitative evidence obtained from the interview were applied to analyze learning outcomes and responses of the English-talented students. Major findings of the study are summarized as follows:
(1) English listening and reading abilities
Statistical evidence suggested the incorporation of differentiated curriculum into the English-talented program produced a positive effect on the participants’ listening and reading comprehension. The students interviewed also confirmed the use of differentiated curriculum made a difference in their realization of real communication, confidence and interest in using a foreign language, appreciation of quality work, and an ability to analyze literary texts.
(2) English speaking and writing abilities
Differentiated curriculum treatment resulted in significant learning outcomes in both English speaking and writing proficiency for talented students. Small-group design adopted in curriculum also facilitated the participants’ language learning to a great extent. A native speaker as an instructor, with the use of higher-level and interactive teaching activities successfully motivated the talented students. Pedagogical focuses on writing strategies and self-correction largely promoted composition writing ability of the participants as well.
(3) Satisfaction levels
Significant differences in satisfaction towards program effectiveness were found between the talented and the regular in terms of curriculum design and teaching methodology, learning environment and opportunity, and learning effects. The talented program better satisfied the language learners due to a challenging learning environment, beneficial learning resources and enough learning opportunities, and it also equipped the talented students with better abilities to do literary analyses and self-directed learning. However, research results demonstrated that there was room for curriculum improvement on higher-level thinking, independent thinking, problem solving skills and stimulation of sense of inquiry. It was also regrettable that when the talented program helped students acquire better language skills and value hard work, it should fail to boost their self-esteem, sense of achievement, and most importantly, pleasure in learning a foreign language.
The present study validates Maker’s (1982) principle underlying curriculum development for the talented that experiences for these learners must be “qualitatively different” from the basic program provided for all learners. It implies that successful curriculum models for talented learners should either ascribe to an enriched viewpoint (Renzulli, 1986; Maker & Nielson, 1995) or incorporate acceleration elements (VanTassel-Baska, 1998). Moreover, teachers of English-talented classes are recommended to offer appropriate curriculum challenge so as to promote optimal learning of verbal talents. In addition to normal curriculum, school administrators are encouraged to make flexible arrangements for instruction both in and out of school, such as seminars, resource rooms, independent study, contests and competitions, summer programs, study abroad programs, distance education programs in order to facilitate language learning of the talented.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

摘要   i
Abstract   iii
Acknowledgements   vi
Table of Contents   vii
List of Tables   ix
List of Figures   x

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION    1
Background of the Study    1
The Target English-talented Program    4
Purpose of the Study    6
Significance of the Study    8
Definitions of Terms    8
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW    11
Definitions and Conceptions of Giftedness and Talent    11
Definitions of Giftedness and Talent    11
Characteristics and Needs of Verbal Talents    14
Identification of Verbal Talents    16
Curriculum for Gifted and Talented Students    17
Principles of Curriculum Development    17
Curriculum Models for the Gifted and Talented    21
Curriculum for Verbal Talents    25
Program Evaluation of Gifted and Talented Education    28
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY    33
Research Design    33
Screening Examination    34
Participants    35
Program Treatment    36
Instruments    38
Procedures    45
Data Analysis    47
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS    48
Participants' Background   48
Effects of English-talented Program on Listening and Reading Comprehension    49
Effects on Listening Comprehension    50
Effects on Reading Comprehension    51
Effects of English-talented Program on Speaking and Writing Ability    52
Effects on Speaking Ability    52
Effects on Writing Ability    53
Results of the Evaluation Questionnaire    57
Information on Participants’ English Learning    57
Satisfaction Levels    59
Results of Semi-structured Interview    72
Students' General Experiences    73
Course Design in English-talented Program    75
Teaching Methodology in English-talented Program    78
Students' Learning Environment    81
Effects of English-talented Program    83
CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS    89
Summary of Main Findings    89
Discussion    91
Effects of English-talented Program on Listening and Reading Comprehension    91
Effects of English-talented Program on Speaking and Writing Ability    95
Satisfaction with the English-talented Program    99
Pedagogical Implications    105
Limitations of the Present Study    108
Suggestions for Future Research    110
REFERENCES    113
APPENDIXES    118
Appendix A: The Receptive Pretest and Posttest (Pilot Version)    118
Appendix B: Item Analysis of The Receptive Test    133
Appendix C: The Receptive Pretest and Posttest (Formal Version)    136
Appendix D: The Productive Pretest and Posttest    150
Appendix E: The Scoring Criteria for Story-telling    152
Appendix F: The Scoring Criteria for Composition    155
Appendix G: The Scoring Criteria for Sentence Translation    158
Appendix H: The Evaluation Questionnaire    159
Appendix I: The Interview Questions    162




LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Design of the Evaluation Questionnaire    43
Table 2. Contents of the Evaluation Questionnaire    44
Table 3. Sequence of the Events of this Study    46
Table 4. Descriptive Statistics of the Pretest and the Posttest on Listening         Comprehension    50
Table 5. ANCOVA Summary for Listening Comprehension    50
Table 6. Descriptive Statistics of the Pretest and the Posttest on Reading         Comprehension    51
Table 7. ANCOVA Summary for Reading Comprehension    52
Table 8. Descriptive Statistics of the Pretest and the Posttest on Speaking Ability    53
Table 9. ANCOVA Summary for Speaking Ability    53
Table 10. Descriptive Statistics of the Pretest and the Posttest on Writing Ability    54
Table 11. ANCOVA Summary for Writing Ability    54
Table 12. Descriptive Statistics of the Pretest and the Posttest on Translation Ability    55
Table 13. ANCOVA Summary for Translation Ability    55
Table 14. Descriptive Statistics of the Pretest and the Posttest on Composition Ability    56
Table 15. ANCOVA Summary for Composition Ability    56
Table 16. Descriptive Statistics of Satisfaction Levels of different categories by Group    60
Table 17. Descriptive Statistics of Satisfaction Levels towards Curriculum Design and Teaching Methodology by Group    62
Table 18. Results of Independent Samples t-test on Satisfaction Levels towards          Curriculum Design and Teaching Methodology by Group    64
Table 19. Descriptive Statistics of Satisfaction Levels towards Learning Environment          and Opportunity by Group    66
Table 20. Results of Independent Samples t-test on Satisfaction Levels towards          Learning Environment and Opportunity by Group    67
Table 21. Descriptive Statistics of Satisfaction Levels towards Learning Effects by          Group    69
Table 22. Results of Independent Samples t-test on Satisfaction Levels towards          Learning Effects by Group    71
Table 23. Descriptive Statistics of Overall Evaluation by Group    72
Table 24. Result of Independent Samples t-test on Overall Evaluation by Group    72

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. The Experience of Flow    20
Figure 2 Background Information of the Participants    49
Figure 3. Participants’ Ways of Practicing English after School    58
Figure 4. Participants’ Self-evaluation of Performance in English    59
                                

Adler, M. (1984). The Paideia Program. New York: Collier.
Avery, L. D., VanTassel-Baska, J., & O’Neill, B. (1997). Making Evaluation Work: One School District’s Experience. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41 (4), 124-132.
Bailey, J. M. (1996). Literacy Development in Verbally Talented Children. In J. VanTassel-Baska, D. T. Johnson & L. N. Boyce (Eds.), Developing Verbal Talent: Ideas and Strategies for Teachers of Elementary and Middle School Students, (pp. 97-114). Needham Hts., MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Bartz, W. (1982). The Role of Foreign Language Education for the Gifted and Talented Student. Foreign Language Annals, 15(5), 29-34.
Bloomington, IN. (1996). Teaching English to Gifted Students. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services. No. ED400561).
Butler-Por, N. (1993). Underachieving Gifted Students. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International Handbook of Research and Development of Giftedness and Talent (pp. 649-668). Oxford: Pergamon.
Callahan, C. M. (1983). Issues in Evaluating Programs for the Gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 27 (1), 3-7.
Callahan, C. M. (1995). Using Evaluation to Improve Programs for the Gifted. The School Administrator, 52 (4), 22-24.
Callahan, C. M. (2000). Evaluation as a Critical Component of Program Development and Implementation. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, R. J. Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.) International Handbook of Giftedness and Talent, (pp. 537-548). Oxford: Pergamon.
Carter, K. (1992). A Model for Evaluating Programs for the Gifted under Non-experimental Conditions, Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 15, 266-283.
Carter, K. R., & Hamilton, W. (1985). Formative Evaluation of Gifted Programs: A Process and Model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29 (1), 5-11.
Chen, C. L. (2005). A Study of Relationships among Learning Motivation, Learning Satisfaction, and Learning Achievement of Junior High School Students— Example in Yunlin County. Unpublished Master Degree Thesis, National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, Taiwan.
Collie, J., & S. Slater (1991). Literature in the Language Classroom: A resource book of ideas and activities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cox, J., Daniel, N., & Boston, B. O. (1985). Educating Able Learners:Programs and Promising Practices. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Cronbach, L. J. (1982). Designing Evaluations of Educational and Social Programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Wolfe, R. (2000). New Conceptions and Research Approaches to Creativity: Implications of a Systems Perspective for Creativity in Education. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, R. J. Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.) International Handbook of Giftedness and Talent, (pp. 81-93). Oxford: Pergamon.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York: Harper and Row.
Feldhusen, J. F., VanTassel-Baska, J., & Seeley, K. (1989). Excellence in Educating the Gifted. Denver, Colorado: Love Publishing Company.
Gallagher, J. (1985). Teaching the Gifted Child. (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Ganopole, S. J. (1982). Measuring the Educational Outcomes of Gifted Programs. Roeper Review, 5 (1), 4-7.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: the Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1995). Reflections on Multiple Intelligences: Myths and Messages. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(3), 200-209.
Hertzog, N. B. (2003). Impact of Gifted Programs from the Students’ Perspectives. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47 (2), 131-143.
Hess, N. (2003). Real Language through Poetry: A Formula for Meaning Making. ELT Journal, 57 (1), 19-25.
Holten, C. (1997). Literature: A Quintessential content’ in M. A. Snow and D. M. Brinton (eds.). The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content. White Plains, New York: Longman: 377-87.
Hunsaker, S., & Callahan, C. M. (1993). Evaluation of Gifted Programs: Current Practice. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 190-200.
Hymes, D. H. (1972). On Communicative Competence. In J.B. Pride and J. Holmes (eds.), Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Maker, C. J., & Nielson, A. B. (1995). Teaching Models in Education of the Gifted. (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Maker, C. J., & Nielson, A. B. (1996). Curriculum Development and Teaching Strategies for Gifted Learners. (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Maker, C. June (1982). Curriculum Development for the Gifted. Texas: A Pro-ed Publication.
Moon, S. M., Feldhusen, J. E., & Dillon, D. R. (1994). Long-term Effects of an Enrichment Program Based on the Purdue Three-stage Model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38 (1), 38-48.
Moon, S. M., Swift, M., & Shallenberger, A. (2002). Perceptions of a Self-contained Class for Fourth- and Fifth-grade Students with High to Extreme Levels of Intellectual Giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46 (1), 64-79.
Nevo, D. (1983). The Conceptualization of Educational Evaluation: An Analytical Review of the Literature. Review of Educational Research, 53 (1), 117-128.
Olszewski-Kubilius, P. , & Whalen, S. P. (2000). The Education and Development of Verbally Talented Students. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, R. J. Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik (Eds). International Handbook of Giftedness and Talent, (pp. 397-411). Oxford: Pergamon.
Passow, A. H. (1986). Curriculum for the Gifted and Talented at the Secondary Level. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30(4). 186-191.
Passow, A. H. (1996). Talent Identification and Development in the Language Arts. In J. VanTassel-Baska, D. T. Johnson, L. N. Boyce (Eds). Developing Verbal Talent: Ideas and Strategies for Teachers of Elementary and Middle School Students. Needham Hts., MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Payne, D. A., & Brown, C. L. (1982). The Use and Abuse of Control Groups in Program Evaluation. Roeper Review, 5 (1), 11-14.
Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (1982). A Research Report on the Revolving Door Identification Model: A Case for the Broadened Conception of Giftedness. Phi Delta Kappan, 63, 619-620.
Renzulli, J. S. (1977). The Enrichment Triad Model: A Guide for Developing Defensible Programs for the Gifted and Talented. Wethersfield, Conn: Creative Learning Press.
Renzulli, J. S., Smith, L. H., & Reis, S. M. (1982). Curriculum Compacting: An Essential Strategy for Working with Gifted Children. Elementary School Journal, 82 (3), 185-194.
Silky, W. , & Reading, J. (1992). REDSIL: A Fourth Generation Evaluation Model for Gifted Education Programs. Roeper Review, 15, 67-69.
Simonton, D. K. (2000). Genius and Giftedness: Same or Different? In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, R. J. Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.) International Handbook of Giftedness and Talent, (pp. 111-121). Oxford: Pergamon.
Southern, W. T. (1992). Lead Us not into Temptation: Issues in Evaluating the Effective of Gifted Programs. In Challenges in Gifted Education: Developing Potential and Investing in Knowledge for the 21st Century, (pp. 103-108). Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Education.
Thompson, M. C., & Thompson, M. B. (1996). Reflections on Foreign Language Study for Highly Able Learners. In J. VanTassel-Baska, D. T. Johnson, L. N. Boyce (Eds). Developing Verbal Talent: Ideas and Strategies for Teachers of Elementary and Middle School Students. Needham Hts., MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Tomlinson, C., & Callahan, C. M. (1993). Planning Effective Evaluations for Programs for the Gifted. Roeper Review, 17, 46-51.
Traxler, M. A. (1987). Gifted Education Program Evaluation: A National Review. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 10, 107-113.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (1988). Curriculum for the Gifted: Theory, Research, and Practice. In J. VanTassel-Baska, J. Feldhusen, K. Seeley, G. Wheatley, L. Silverman & W. Foster, Comprehensive Curriculum for Gifted Learners, (pp. 1-17). Needham Hts., MA: Allyn & Bacon.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (1996b). The Process of Talent Development. In J. VanTassel-Baska, D. T. Johnson & L. N. Boyce (Eds.), Developing Verbal Talent: Ideas and Strategies for Teachers of Elementary and Middle School Students, (pp. 3-22). Needham Hts., MA: Allyn & Bacon.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (1998). Excellence in Educating Gifted and Talented Learners. (3rd ed.). Denver, CO: Love.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (2000). Theory and Research on Curriculum Development for the Gifted. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, R. J. Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.) International Handbook of Giftedness and Talent, (pp. 345-365). Oxford: Pergamon.
VanTassel-Baska, J., Bass, G. M., Ries, R. R., Poland, D. L. & Avery, L. D. (1998). A National Pilot Study of Science Curriculum Effectiveness for High-ability Students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42 (4), 200-212.
VanTassel-Baska, J., Willis, G. B., & Meyer, D. (1989). Evaluation of a Full-time Self-contained Class for Gifted Students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33 (1), 7-10.
VanTassel-Baska, J., Zuo, L., Avry, L. D., & Little, C. A. (2002). A Curriculum Study of Gifted-Student Learning in the Language Arts. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46 (1), 30-44.
Wang, C. O. (2001). The Effect of Instructing Writing Formula Poems in Junior High Schools. Papers in The Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on English Teaching, pp 621-34.
Winch, C. (1990). Language, ability, and educational achievement. New York: Routledge.
Wu, E. H. (2005). Factors that Contribute to Talented Performance: A Theoretical Model from a Chinese Perspective. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49 (3), 231-246.
Ziegler, A., & Heller, K. A. (2000). Conceptions of Giftedness from a Meta-Theoretical Perspective. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, R. J. Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International Handbook of Giftedness and Talent, (pp. 3-21). Oxford: Pergamon.

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文