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：	蕭若綺 Anna Jo-chii Shiau
論文名稱：	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 Using Reciprocal Teaching to Develop Thinking in a Senior High EFL Classroom in Taiwan
指導教授：	陳秋蘭 Chen, Chiou-Lan
學位類別：	碩士 Master
系所名稱：	英語學系 Department of English
論文出版年：	2009
畢業學年度：	98
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	116
中文關鍵詞：	批判性思考、互惠式教學法、布魯姆認知分類
英文關鍵詞：	critical thinking, reciprocal teaching, Bloom's taxonomy
論文種類：	學術論文
相關次數：	點閱：271 下載：50
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

普通高級中學英文科98課綱即將於2010年實施，其最大特色在於納入批判性思考(critical thinking)與創造性思考(creative thinking)的培養。然而思考能力在台灣教育界並不受重視，而且國內研究尚未對此議題有深入的探討。雖然坊間教科書已如火如荼地進行修編，但面對即將推行的98課綱，許多英文老師仍覺得無所適從。因此，本研究目的主要探討互惠式教學法(reciprocal teaching)實行於高中英語教學現場的可行性，著重於探討此教學法是否能有效提昇學生的思考能力。
參與本研究的學生為台北市某校三十六位高一男生。本實驗為期六週，每週有兩節課的時間。本實驗的閱讀教材為五篇短篇故事，其改編自坊間針對高一生設計的教科書。本研究作者嘗試使用互惠式教學法(reciprocal teaching)引導學生閱讀，並透過學生提問(student-generated questions)及問卷調查(questionnaire)了解互惠式教學法的教學成效。本研究作者主要採用布魯姆(B. S. Bloom)1956年提出的認知領域教育目標分類(A Taxonomy of Educational Objectives)來分析學生的問題，學生提出的問題可分為六類：一、事實性問題(factual questions)；二、詮釋性問題(interpretational questions)；三、經驗性問題(experiential questions)；四、分析性問題(analytical questions)；五、評鑑性問題(evaluative questions)；六、創造性問題(creative questions)。
研究結果顯示，雖然大部分學生仍停留於提問「事實性問題」及「詮釋性問題」，但學生普遍問比較多有關文章大意的問題，而且他們問「詮釋性問題」多於問「事實性問題」。此外，學生不但問比較多「分析性問題」與「評鑑性問題」，「分析性問題」與「評鑑性問題」在問題內容上也比較具有變化性。學生的「創造性問題」雖然在數量上沒有明顯地改變，但在問題內容上卻變得比較多元。「經驗性問題」則比較少出現在學生提問中。學生普遍認為自己從互惠式教學法中學到互惠式教學法的四個閱讀策略－預測(predicting)、澄清(clarifying)、概述(summarizing)、提問(questioning)，英文語言能力有進步，變得比較主動學英文，也比較能掌握自己學習的情況。學生也認為自己在閱讀時比較會思考故事深層的意義，而且變得比較會問問題。針對互惠式教學法的四個閱讀策略，學生認為最有幫助閱讀理解的是「概述」，但最難學會的也是「概述」。總之，學生普遍喜歡使用互惠式教學法閱讀文章，而且互惠式教學法有助於提昇他們的思考能力。以上教學實驗結果證明互惠式教學法不但能提昇英語能力，更能引導學生進行深度思考，足為實現98課綱英文能力指標的教學方法之ㄧ。在結論中，本研究提出實行互惠式教學法於台灣英語教學現場的建議，並同時提出不足之處，以供將來研究參考。

The 2010 Guidelines for Senior High School English Curriculum marks an important breakthrough in English language teaching in Taiwan. It is the first time that critical thinking and creative thinking are included in the curriculum guidelines. However, many English teachers are concerned about the feasibility of the guidelines, for little has been known about how to teach higher level thinking in regular classes. This study aims to explore whether reciprocal teaching－a reading instructional approach that consists of predicting, clarifying, summarizing, and questioning－is effective in developing higher level thinking among senior high school students and how much the students like the approach.
The case study approach was used to conduct the present study. The participants were 36 male students in the first year of senior high school. During the six-week study, the students read five short stories via the reciprocal teaching method. Student-generated questions and the participants’ responses to the Perception Questionnaire were collected and analyzed. The coding scheme used to evaluate student-generated questions was adapted from Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy. Students’ questions were then categorized into (1) factual questions, (2) interpretational questions, (3) experiential questions, (4) analytical questions, (5) evaluative questions, and (6) creative questions.
Important findings were summarized below. First, though the students tended to ask more lower level questions (i.e. factual questions and interpretational questions), they asked more interpretational questions than factual questions, and the factual questions were more related to the main idea of the stories than the details. Besides, the number of analytical questions and evaluative questions increased, and a great variety was found in the content of the questions. In addition, though the students did not make much progress in asking more creative questions, a great variety was also found in the content of such questions. What’s more, the students asked very few experiential questions, which seemed to be related to the characteristics of the stories. Most students had positive opinions about reciprocal teaching. They learned the four reading strategies of reciprocal teaching, improved their language skills, became more active learners, and became more conscious of their own learning and thinking. Furthermore, they became more able to read critically and more capable of asking “good” questions. Among the four reading strategies of reciprocal teaching, summary generation was simultaneously rated as the most useful strategy in facilitating reading comprehension and the most difficult one to learn. Pedagogical implications, limitations, and suggestions for future studies were presented as well.

Chinese Abstract    i
English Abstract    iii
Acknowledgements    v
Table of Contents    vii
List of Tables    xi
List of Figure    xiii
Chapter One Introduction    1
Background and Motivation    1
Significance of the Study    6
Research Questions    7
Chapter Two Literature Review    9
Learning Theories    9
Reading Theories    10
Critical Thinking    12
   Definitions of Critical Thinking    12
   Empirical Studies on Critical Thinking    14
Reciprocal Teaching    16
   Empirical Studies on Reciprocal Teaching    19
Critical Thinking and Reciprocal Teaching    23
Taxonomies of Questions    27
   Bloom’s Taxonomy    27
   The Revised Bloom's Taxonomy    28
   Other Taxonomies    30
   Taxonomy Used in the Present Study    31
Summary    33
Chapter Three Method    35
Research Design    35
   Setting    35
   Participants    35
   Materials    36
Procedure of the Study    38
Data Collection    44
Data Analysis    44
Summary    47
Chapter Four Results and Discussion    48
Results    48
   Effects of Reciprocal Teaching on Promoting Higher Level Thinking    48
      Results from the classification of student-generated questions    48
         Short story # 1: The Cleverness That Saved Her Life    49
         Short story # 2: Demeter and Persephone    51
         Short story # 3: The Long-haired Spirits And The Thao    53
         Short story # 4: Frankenstein    56
      Overall comparison    58
         The Cleverness That Saved Her Life versus Frankenstein    58
         Experiential questions and creative questions across the four stories    59
         Plateau of the evaluative questions    60
         The relationship between question types and the occurrence of  t          t        paragraph in the text    61
         Percentage of the six question types    62
   Acceptability of Reciprocal Teaching from Students’ Perspectives    62
      Results from the Perception Questionnaire    63
      Learning via Reciprocal Teaching    63
      Evaluation of the four strategies of reciprocal teaching    70
      The relationship between reciprocal teaching and critical thinking    71
      Students’ perception of reciprocal teaching and their suggestions    74
Discussion    78
   Reciprocal Teaching and Higher Level Thinking    78
   Perception of Reciprocal Teaching    80
   The Strategy That Should Be Paid Special Attention To    82
   Other Findings    83
Summary    85
Chapter Five Conclusion    87
Summary of Findings    87
Pedagogical Implications    88
Limitations    90
Suggestions for Future Research    91
Final Remarks    92
References....    94
Appendix A: Reading Materials    103
Appendix B: Story Structure of the Other Short Stories    108
Appendix C: The Perception Questionnaire (in English)    110
Appendix D: The Perception Questionnaire (in Chinese)    111
Appendix E: Prompts for the Practice of the Four Reading Strategies of Reciprocal Teaching    112
Appendix F: A Record of Questions    113
Appendix G: A Sample of Teacher-led Discussion on Mother’s Hands    114
Table 1 The Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy in the Two-dimensional Form    30
Table 2 Story Structure of Mother’s Hands    38
Table 3 Readability and Length of the Stories    38
Table 4 Tasks for Predicting, Clarifying, Summarizing, and Questioning    40
Table 5 Summary of Teacher-led Discussion    41
Table 6 Four Roles in the Student-led Discussion    41
Table 7 Summary of Student-led Discussion    42
Table 8 Three Stages of the Treatment    43
Table 9 Types and Examples of Student-generated Questions    45
Table 10 Analysis of Questions About The Cleverness That Saved Her Life    49
Table 11 Analysis of Questions About Demeter and Persephone    52
Table 12 Analysis of Questions About The Long-haired Spirits And The Thao    54
Table 13 Analysis of Questions About Frankenstein    56
Table 14 Comparison of Questions About the First and the Last Stories    58
Table 15 Comparison of the Percentage of Experiential Questions and Creative Questions Across the Four Stories    60
Table 16 Comparison of the Percentage of Evaluative Questions Across the Four Stories    61
Table 17 The Effect of the Occurrence of Paragraph on Question Types    62
Table 18 Overall Percentage of the Questions    62
Table 19 Learning from Reciprocal Teaching    64
Table 20 Percentage of Questions with Copied Words    68
Table 21 Frequency of Inversion Errors Found in Wh-questions    69
Table 22 Evaluation of the Four Reading Strategies of Reciprocal Teaching    70
Table 23 Self-assessment of Being a Critical Thinker    72
Table 24 Expectance of Continuing Receiving Reciprocal Teaching    74
Figure 1 A Comparison of Bloom’s Taxonomy and the Revised Bloom's Taxonomy    29
                                

Al-Hilawani, Y. A., Marchant, G. J., & Poteet, J. A. (1993). Implementing reciprocal teaching: Was it effective? Paper presented at the 23rd annual meeting of Midwest Association of Teachers of Education Psychology, Anderson, IN.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy of learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
Applegate, M. D., Quinn, K. B., & Applegate, A. J. (2002). Levels of thinking required by comprehension questions in informal reading inventories. The Reading Teacher, 56(2), 174-180.
Atkinson, D. (1997). A critical approach to critical thinking in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 31(1), 71-94.
Aviles, C. B. (1999). Understanding and testing for “critical thinking” with Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Council on Social Work Education, San Francisco, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 446025)
Babalioutas, D., & Papadopoulou, M. (2007). Teaching critical literacy through print advertisements: An intervention with 6th grade students (Ages 11-12). The International Journal of Learning, 14(7), 119-127.
Barrett, T. (1976). Taxonomy of reading comprehension. In R. Smith & T. Barrett (Eds.), Teaching reading in the middle grades. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bissell, A. N., & Lemons, P. P. (2006). A new method for assessing critical thinking in the classroom. BioScience, 56(1), 66-72.
Bloom, B. S., Engelahar, M. D., Frust, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objective, handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.
Brown, A. (2004). Bloom’s taxonomy and critical thinking. In J. L. Kincheloe & D. Weil (Eds.), Critical thinking and learning: An encyclopedia for parents and teachers (pp.77-82). London: Greenwood Press.
Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (4th ed.). New York: Longman.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. New York: Pearson.
Browne, M. N., & Freeman, K. (2000). Distinguishing features of critical thinking classrooms. Teaching in Higher Education, 5(3), 301-309.
Chern, Chiou-lan. (2005). The role of junior high school EFL reading and instruction in Nine Year Integrated Curriculum. In The challenge and solution of English instruction in Nine year Integrated Curriculum. Taipei: NTNU.
Chin, C. (2002). Student-generated questions: A meaningful aspect of learning in science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(5), 521-549.
Coley, J. D., DePinto, T., Craig, S., & Gardner, R. (1993). From college to classroom: Three teachers’ accounts of their adaptations of reciprocal teaching. The Elementary School Journal, 94(2), 255-266.
Cooper, J. D., Warncke, E. W., & Shipman, D. A. (1988). The what and how of reading instruction (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Cotton, K. (1991). Close-up #11: Teaching thinking skills. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory’s School Improvement Research Series Web. Retrieved January 11, 2009, from http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/6/cull.html
Daniel, M., & Lenski, S. (2007). The importance of critical literacy for English language learners. Illinois Reading Council Journal, 35(2), 32-36.
Daud, N. M., & Husin, Z. (2004). Developing critical thinking skills in computer-aided extended reading classes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(4), 477-487.
Davidson, B. W., & Dunham, R. L. (1996). Assessing EFL student progress in critical thinking with the Ennis-Weir critical thinking essay test. Retrieved January 11, 2009, from ERIC database.
Dewey, J. (1902). The child and the curriculum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dewey, J. (1924). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan Company.
Duke, N. K., & Pearson, D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In A. Farstrup & S. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 205-242). Newark, DE: IRA.
Forehand, M. (2005). Bloom’s taxonomy: Original and revised. In M. Orey (Ed.). Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved January 12, 2009, from http:// www. Coe.uga.edu/epltt/bloom.htm
Frances, S. M., & Eckart, J. A. (1992). The effects of reciprocal teaching on comprehension. Retrieved January 11, 2009, from ERIC database.
Gabriel, J. (2004). Critical thinking, teaching, and language. In J. L. Kincheloe & D. Weil (Eds.), Critical thinking and learning: An encyclopedia for parents and teachers (pp.269-272). London: Greenwood Press.
Ghajar-Ghahremani, S., & Mirhossrini, S. (2005). English class or speaking about everything class? Dialogue journal writing as a critical EFL literacy practice in an Iranian high school. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 18 (3), 286-299.
Greenlaw, S. A., & DeLoach, S. B. (2003). Teaching critical thinking with electronic discussion. Journal of Economic Education, 43(1), 36-52.
Greenway, C. (2002). The process, pitfalls and benefits of implementing a reciprocal teaching intervention to improve the reading comprehension of a group of year 6 pupils. Educational Psychology in Practice. 18(2), 113-137.
Guthrie, B. (2000). Thinking about students' thinking. Practitioner Research Briefs, 1999-2000 Report Series. Virginia Adult Education Research Network, Dayton. Retrieved January 12, 2009, from http://www.vcu.edu/aelweb/Barbara_ Guthrie.pdf on 2008/12/1
Hashey, J. M., & Connors, D. J. (2003). Learn from our journey: Reciprocal teaching action research. The Reading Teacher, 57(3), 224-232.
Herman, J. (2005). Thwarting expectations: Assignments from a critical thinking class. New Directions for Community Colleges, 130, 69-77.
Huang, Chiou-yen. (2004). Think to win: An inquiry-based approach via collaborative strategic reading technique to teach English reading in a senior high EFL classroom. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan.
Hill, C., & Parry, K. (1994). Models of literacy: The nature of reading tests. In C. Hill & K. Parry (Eds.), From testing to assessment. New York: Longman.
Hill, P. (2009, Jan 13). Learning the elements of a novel: Structure and plot. Writing a novel. Retrieved January 13, 2009, from http://www.musik-therapie.at/PederHill/
Structure&Plot.htm
Inch, E. S., Warnick, B., & Endres, D. (2006). Critical thinking and communication: The use of reason in argument. New York: Pearson Educational Inc.
Kabilan, M. K. (2000). Creative and critical thinking in language classrooms. The Internet TESL Journal, 6(6). Retrieved November 21, 2005, from http://itselj.org/Techniques/Kabilian-CriticalThinking.html
Kelly, M., Moore, D. W., & Tuck, B. F. (2001). Reciprocal teaching in a regular primary school classroom. Journal of Educational Research, 88(1), 53-61.
Klingner, J. K., & Vaughn, S. (1996). Reciprocal teaching of reading comprehension strategies for students with learning disabilities who use English as a second language. The Elementary School Journal, 96(3), 275-293.
Lapp, D., & Flood, J. (1986). Teaching students to read. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Liaw, M. L. (2007). Content-based reading and writing for critical thinking skills in an EFL context. English Teaching & Learning, 31(2), 45-87.
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1999). How languages are learned (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford.
Lin, Chun-yen. (2006). Incorporating critical thinking into English language teaching in the film-based classroom. Journal of Education and Foreign Languages and Literature, 2, 53-69.
Liu, Yu-chen. (2005). Interact with authors: The effect of questioning the author on the recall, inference generation, and comprehension of EFL junior high school. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan.
Marks, et al. (1993). Three teachers’ adaptations of reciprocal teaching in comparison to traditional reciprocal teaching. The Elementary School Journal, 94(2), 267-283.
Martikean, A. (1973). The levels of questioning and their effects upon student performance above knowledge level of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives (Research Paper No. E585, Division of Education). Gary: Indiana University Northwest. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED091248)
May, F. B. (1998). Reading as communication: To help children write and read (5th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
McDaniel, C. (2004). Critical literacy: A questioning stance and the possibility for change. The Reading Teacher, 57(5), 472-481.
McMillan, J. H. (1987). Enhancing college students’ critical thinking: A review of studies. Research in Higher Education, 27(1), 3-29.
Miller, C. D., Miller, L. F., & Rosen, L. A. (2002). Modified reciprocal teaching in a regular classroom. Journal of Experimental Education, 56(4), 183-186.
Molden, K. (2007). Critical literacy, the right answer for the reading classroom: Strategies to move beyond comprehension for reading improvement. Reading Improvement, 44(1), 50-56.
Morrell, E. (2003). Writing the word and the world: Critical literacy as critical textual production. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, New York.
Morrison, S., & Free, K. W. (2001). Writing multiple-choice test items that promote and measure critical thinking. Journal of Nursing Education, 40(1), 17-24.
Norris, S. P., & Ennis, R. H. (1989). Evaluating critical thinking. CA: Midwest Publications.
Nunan, D. (2003). Research methods in language learning. UK: Cambridge University Press.
Oczkus, L. D. (2003). Reciprocal teaching at work: Strategies for improving reading comprehension. Newark, DE: International reading Association.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension- fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117-175.
Palincsar, A. S., Ranson, K., & Derber, S. (1989). Collaborative research and development of reciprocal teaching. Educational Leadership, 46(4), 37-40.
Patterson, S. R. (1993). Promoting critical thinking skills for fourth grade students through the use of children’s books. Unpublished doctorial dissertation, Nova University, Sweden.
Paul, R., Binker, A. J. A., Martin, D., & Adamson, K. (1995). Critical thinking handbook: High school: A guide for redesigning instruction. CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking.
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2001). Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your learning and your life. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Paul, R. W. (1985). Bloom’s taxonomy and critical thinking instruction. Educational Leadership, 42(8), 36-39.
Pearson, P. D., & Johnson, D. D. (1978). Teaching reading comprehension. New York, NY: Holt. Rinehart & Winston.
Piaget, J. (1964). Cognitive development in children: Development and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2, 176-186.
Pithers, P. T. (2000). Critical thinking in education: A review. Educational Research, 42(3), 237-249.
Rafik-Galea, S., & Nair, P. B. (2007). Enhancing ESL teacher trainees’ critical thinking skills through scaffolding. Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 11(1), 99-113.
Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 64(4), 479-530.
Scanlan, J. S. (2006). The effect of Richard Paul’s universal elements and standards of reasoning on twelfth grade composition. Unpublished master’s thesis, Alliant International University, California.
Schultz, L. (2005). Old domain university: Bloom’s taxonomy. Retrieved March 5, 2005, from http://web.odu.edu//educ//llschult/blooms_txxonomy.htm
Seymour, J. R., & Osana, H. P. (2003). Reciprocal teaching procedures and principles: Two teachers’ developing understanding. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 325-344.
Sharwood, S. M. (1981). Consciousness-raising and the second language learner. Applied Linguistics, 2(2), 159-168.
Slater, W. H., & Horstman, F. R. (2002). Teaching reading and writing to struggling middle school and high school students: The case for reciprocal teaching. Preventing School Failure, 46(4), 163-166.
Smith, N. B. (1963). Reading instruction for today’s children. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Stapleton, P. (2001). Assessing critical thinking in the writing of Japanese university students. Written Communication, 18(4), 506-548.
Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2007). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills (2nd ed.). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Takala, M. (2006). The effects of reciprocal teaching on reading comprehension in mainstream and special (SLI) education. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 50(5), 559-576.
Tillman, Y. R. (1994). Improving critical thinking skills in second graders through instruction and teacher-led discussion groups. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Nova Southeastern University, Florida.
Tsui, L. (2002). Fostering critical thinking through effective pedagogy: Evidence from four institutional case studies. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(6), 740-763.
Tweed, R. G., & Lehman, D. R. (2002). Learning considered within a cultural context: Confucian and Socratic approaches. American Psychologist, 57(2), 89-99.
Vojnovich, C. M. (1997). Improving student motivation in the secondary classroom through the use of critical thinking skills, cooperative learning techniques, and reflective journal writing. Unpublished master’s thesis, Saint Xavier University, Illinois.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Walker, S. E. (2003). Active learning strategies to promote critical thinking. Journal of Athletic Training, 38(3), 263-267.
Whiteley, T. R. (2006). Using the Socratic Method and Bloom’s taxonomy of the cognitive domain to enhance online discussion, critical thinking, and student learning. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, 33, 65-70.
Woolfolk, A. (2004). Educational Psychology (9th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Wu, M. (2000). The study of epistemology on critical thinking instruction. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan.
Zainuddin, H., & Moore, R. A. (2003). Enhancing critical thinking with structured controversial dialogues. The Internet TESL Journal, 9(6). Retrieved January 12, 2009, from http://iteslj.org/Technique/Zainuddin-Controversial.html

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文