簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

研究生: 吳羿萩
Wu, Yi-Chiou
論文名稱: 賞識思維在華語文教學上的應用—以胡志明市美國學校中級華語班學生為例
Applying Artful Thinking to Teaching Chinese as a Second Language - Based on the American School Ho Chi Minh City, Intermediate Mandarin Level Students
指導教授: 蔡雅薰
Tsai, Ya-Hsun
口試委員: 蔡雅薰
Tsai, Ya-Hsun
林振興
Lin, Zhen-Xing
蔡娉婷
Tsai, Ping-Ting
口試日期: 2024/07/22
學位類別: 碩士
Master
系所名稱: 華語文教學系海外華語師資數位碩士在職專班
Department of Chinese as a Second Language_Online Continuing Education Master's Program of Teaching Chinese as a Foreign Language
論文出版年: 2024
畢業學年度: 112
語文別: 中文
論文頁數: 116
中文關鍵詞: 賞識思維思考秉性胡志明市美國學校零點計畫華語教學
英文關鍵詞: Artful Thinking, Thinking Dispositions, The American School Ho Chi Minh City, Project Zero (Zero Point Project), Chinese teaching
研究方法: 行動研究法
DOI URL: http://doi.org/10.6345/NTNU202401861
論文種類: 代替論文:專業實務報告(專業實務類)
相關次數: 點閱:307下載:20
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
  • 賞識思維(Artful Thinking)顧名思義從藝術中培養思考力,為哈佛大學「零點計畫」中的專案,透過藝術思維歷程,引導學生對藝術作品做出反應,並培養學生的思考習慣。專案的目標在於建立藝術與主題教學的連結,讓藝術作為發展思考力的力量。教師扮演著極為重要的角色,引導學生觀察、擴展描述,增進理解,深度思考,挖掘事件、連結經驗,反思生活等,讓思考變得可見。
    賞識思維的六個核心思維秉性–比較與連接、探索觀點、尋找複雜性、觀察與描述、質疑與調查,推理,本研究將運用兩大思考秉性「觀察與描述」以及「比較與連結」貫穿在三大單元中。三個單元的賞識思維課程融合了單元所學內容知識,吸引學生投入課堂,促進思考。
    研究者清楚的紀錄下三單元,六堂課中學生們對於藝術作品的回應,以及學生於課堂後對於課程的學習滿意度。期盼透過本研究能提供給華語教學者及相關研究者之參考,營造課堂的思考文化,一起學習運用思考歷程,將思考歷程長期融入在各個單元中,讓課程變得更加有靈活、豐富,有意義,讓中文課成為一門終生學習的課程。

    As the name suggests, Artful Thinking cultivates thinking ability from art. It is a project of Harvard University's "Zero Point Project". Through the artistic thinking process, it guides students to respond to works of art and cultivates students' thinking habits. The goal of the project is to establish a connection between art and subject-based teaching, so that art can serve as a force for developing thinking. Teachers play an extremely important role, guiding students to observe, expand descriptions, enhance understanding, think deeply, explore events, connect experiences, reflect on life, etc., making thinking visible.
    There are six core thinking dispositions of appreciative thinking - compare and connect, explore ideas, look for complexity, observe and describe, question and investigate, and reason. This study will use the two major thinking dispositions "observation and description" and "compare and connect" throughout in three major units. The three-unit appreciative thinking course integrates the content knowledge learned in the unit, attracts students to engage in class, and promotes thinking.
    The researcher clearly recorded the students' responses to the artworks in the three units and six classes, as well as the students' satisfaction with the course after class. It is hoped that this study can provide a reference for Chinese teaching researchers and related researchers, create a thinking culture in the classroom, learn to use the thinking process together, and integrate the thinking process into each unit for a long time, making the curriculum more flexible and richer, meaningful, making Chinese class a lifelong learning course.

    謝誌 i 摘要 ii Abstract iii 目次 iv 表次 vi 圖次 vii 第一章緒論 1 第一節研究背景與動機 1 第二節研究目的與問題 2 第三節名詞解釋 4 第二章文獻探討 7 第一節思考傾向 7 第二節高層次思考 10 第三節視覺思維策略與方法(Visual Thinking) 17 第三章研究設計 33 第一節研究架構 33 第二節研究對象 34 第三節研究工具 38 第四節研究流程 43 第四章賞識思維課程設計與實施 45 第一節課程設計 45 第二節學習評量 49 第三節賞識思維融入我的休閒活動一課–阿尼埃爾的浴場 52 第四節賞識思維融入我的新高中學校–童年 73 第五節賞識思維融入我的社交生活–手機成癮的聖子 88 第五章結論與建議105 第一節結論 105 第二節建議 113 參考文獻 115 中文部分 115 英文部分 115

    一、中文部分
    伍晴文(譯)(2018)。讓思考變得可見(原作者:Ritchhart, R., Church, M., & Morrison, K)。新北市:遠足文化。
    李宜臻(2022)。ARTFUL THINKING激發孩子潛能的哈佛名畫思考課:6大思考稟性 × 20條思考路徑,鍛鍊AI世代的賞識思維。臺北市:親子天下股份有限公司。
    洪蘭(譯)(2023)。快思慢想(原作:Kahneman.D)。臺北市:天下文化
    張鴻(2012)。善用邏輯思考,簡單解決問題。貿易雜誌,頁32–34。
    張菁玉(2018)。淺論美感素養之「觀看」— 以阿恩海姆之視知覺張力說為觀點。台灣教育評論月刊,頁75–80
    葉玉珠(2002)。高層次思考教學設計的要素分析。國立中山大學通識教育學報創刊號,P76–92。
    趙李宛儀(2003)。 思維技巧的教與學。香港中文大學(學校教育改革系列),頁3–21
    二、英文部分
    Anderson & Krathwohl. (2001). Bloom’s Taxonomy Revised, 1-4. Retrieved from extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://quincycollege.edu/wp-content/uploads/Anderson-and-Krathwohl_Revised-Blooms-Taxonomy.pdf
    Cohen, D., Nisbett, R. E., Bowdle, B. F., & Schwarz, N. (1996). Insult, aggression, and the southern culture of honor: An experimental ethnography. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(5), 945–960.
    Ennis. R (1991). Critical Thinking: Streamlined Concept Teaching Philosophy. 6–10
    Guilford, J.P. (1959). Traits of creativity in Creativity and its Cultivation. 142–161.↵
    Pelham, B. W., Carvallo, M., & Jones, J. T. (2005). Implicit egotism. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 106–110. ↵
    Peterson, C., Seligman, M. E. P., & Vaillant, G. E. (1988). Pessimistic explanatory style is a risk factor for physical illness: A thirty-five year longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 23–27.
    Ramalingam, D., Anderson, P., Duckworth, D., Scoular, C., & Heard, J. (2020). Creative thinking: Definition and structure. Retrieved from https://research.acer.edu.au/ar_misc/43
    Ritchard, R., Church, M., & Morison, K (2011) Making Thinking Visible: How to Promote Engagement, Understanding, and Independence for All Learners. NJ, US: Jossey-Bass
    Ritchhart, R., & Perkins, D(2008). Making Thinking Visible Educational leadership, 5, 57-61
    Tishman, S., & Palmer, P (2006) Artful Thinking Stronger thinking and learning through power of art, 7-96
    Tishman, S. (2017) Slow Looking: The Art and Practice of Learning Through Observation. London, England: Routledge

    下載圖示
    QR CODE