臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究主旨在如何將多元智慧理論應用於高中英文課程以改善英文低成就學生之英語學習能力，目的在探討：(a)多元智慧理論在高中英文教學之應用成效 (b) 學生在語言學習的過程中相關智慧的運用及 (c) 應用多元智慧理論在高中英文教學之可行策略及活動設計，供日後教學或研究參考。
本研究之對象為台北縣立明德高中第三屆美術實驗班高三學生。為改善其遲滯之教學效率，研究者擬於高三上學期英文課實施為期五個月的多元智慧應用課程，期間收集學生態度量表前後測結果、師生訪談記錄、開放性問卷調查內容及全民英檢參考分數，作為本研究資料分析之參考依據。
本研究分析結果如下：
1. 學生的學習動機及態度明顯轉變積極，對於傳統考試教學所引發之負面效應如壓力等較能理性容忍。
2. 學生體會到運用個人的強項智慧，並透過參與課程內之隊組活動或完成具技巧性之專題活動，不僅能有效激發其潛在英語學習能力，並能同時發展將來完成自我實現時所需之能力或態度。
3. 學生能藉由完整且自發性的課程參與，得到來自教師及同儕的正面評價，重拾自信與自我認同感。
4. 學生透過為理解而做有目的有意義的學習過程，有助其發展獨立學習的能力及未來規劃。
5. 學生學會當眾適度自我表達，於團隊合作活動中為達共識釋出友善關係，並能為精通語言技巧展現其決心並付出努力。
6. 學生透過有系統地參與各課程單元所要求完成的一個接一個學生專題以及團對問題解決之任務，學會如何為自我設計的專題擬訂計畫並實際發展完成，如何辨識出並延伸利用不同且有效的學習資源，及透過事先模擬並合作解決一些與文化及日常生活經驗有關的難題，的確加強了自我解決問題的能力。
7. 學生主要因為學習態度的改善及確實體認實用學習的真義，而在全民英檢的後測中顯示其英語能力的長足進步。
8. 學生能善加利用個人作品集做為大學入學推薦甄試之備審資料，並視編製作品集為個人英文學習之成長記錄及增進個人創作能力之利器。
根據本研究結果，提供以下幾點建議：
1. 雖然多元智慧理論提供有效學習的教學架構，教師須謹戒勿流於僵化之教學形式。教師應根據學生需求調整課程內容，採適切之教學法，避免因要求學生編製個人作品集而重蹈學生課業壓力繁重之覆轍。
2. 在運用多元智慧於教學課程時，學生家長應參與其中。老師可以時常邀請學生家長到校與學生及老師分享不同領域之專業知識，表達他們對其子女的成長觀察，或參與學生專題作品發表與提供評估報告參考。
3. 由於在分析本研究結果時發現，為幫助學生瞭解個人學習經驗的發展而讓學生填寫之學生自我進步報告單及開放性問卷中有不少的重複，因而導致學生重複過多的自我省察敘述。故建議簡化研究設計或研究工具，以便在短期的 教學實驗中達成更有效率的課程進行。
4. 教師本身很難同時擁有八種智能模式以進行教學，但也不能因為自身不擅長某種智能而持續規避運用。反之，不同科教師可合作教學已增加教師本身及學生的教育機會；如同在本研究中藉由音樂、地球科學及美術老師們的輔助協同教學，有效地根據教師本身的強項智能做課程規劃及進行教學。以合科教學的角度來看，高中教師能輕易地採用本理論，因為高中普遍開設通識課程（文科，如歷史、外語等），其中大部分課程多有能即時配合理解性多元智慧課程設計教學的特性，藉此高中生能運用個人強項智慧達到快速認識並確認各自未來之專業領域。
5. 受研究對象人數及課程實施時間限制，本研究著重在對高中英文應用多元智慧教學做總結性評估分析；由於課程設計重點同時強調學習過程與學生作品成果的重要性，形成性評估分析如英語能力進步與否之統計工具運用及其數據參考略顯不足。建議未來研究方向能朝延長教學期限並擴大研究對象人數為目標，提供足夠有效更具說服力的實證數據。

This study focused on how MI theory was applied and what kind of curriculum design could be addressed in a senior high school English class: (a) to explore MI-based application to the English language teaching; (b) to recognize the related intelligences students may involve in the process of language learning; (c) to map adjustable MI-based teaching strategies and activities for the future references.
Subjects were the third grade students of the experimental art class (7 females and 4 males) in Taipei County Ming Derh Senior High School. From September 2001 to February 2002, the researcher implemented the MI-based instruction in her first-semester English classes, aiming to promote teaching effectiveness and students’ learning competences in English. Data were collected from students’ learning attitude scale survey, transcriptions of Teacher-Student Conference Interviews, and students’ answers to an open-ended questionnaire, and the 11 students’ scores on the GEPT.
The analysis of the data revealed the following findings:
1. Students appeared to be more enthusiastic and constructive in motivation and learning attitudes, showing less passive tolerance of some negative consequence caused from pressure leading to studying to the test.
2. Students realized their own powerful intelligences help them develop individual’s potential competences in English learning and prepare for their future self-fulfillment through interaction of shared activities, group experience, or skillful project working.
3. Students recovered their self-esteem and self-identification through their intact and fully willing participation, from which they maintain positive recognition both from the teacher and the peers.
4. Students reshaped their independent learning ability and set a clearly defined goal for the future through awakening awareness from the meaningful or purposeful learning for understanding across the curriculum.
5. Students matured into individuals adaptable to moderate self-expression in public, sharing friendly relations to a consensus in collaboration, and fueling the persistence and efforts necessary for mastering language skills.
6. Students strengthened their problem-solving abilities through systematically being engaged in accomplishing one student project after another and also in the assigned group problem-solving tasks of the five MI-based instruction units. Students learned how to make plans for and actually develop their self-designed projects; how to identify and extend varied helpful and effective resources; to foresee in advance and try to work cooperatively out some simulative problems set in cultural or real-life environments.
7. Students made distinctive progress in the posttest of the General English Proficiency Test, mainly as a consequence of their changes in learning attitudes and of their identifying the true meaning of practical learning.
8. Students made good use of the personal portfolio collection as the required materials for qualification examining of the College Recommendation Entrance Examination. Besides, they regarded compiling portfolios as a task, which helped them perceive their English learning growth, and enhanced their creative awareness.
According to the results of the study, the suggestions would be offered as followed:
1. Although the multiple intelligences theory suggests an effective instructional framework, teacher should avoid practicing it as a rigid pedagogical mode. The teacher is supposed to adapt the teaching curriculum based on students’ needs, and the instructional methods should be appropriate for the content, avoiding resulting in a heavy tight for students to assemble their portfolios.
2. In this MI-based curriculum parents should give an active voice. They should be frequently invited to share their expertise with students and the teacher, to share their observations of their children’s developing skills, and to participate in professional development activities. Besides, it is best for students to invite their parents to attend presentations of students project works, or even to be involved in redesigning assessment reports on their children. The teacher can inform parents of student activities and achievements through phone calls, visits, sending newsletters, extra interviews, etc.
3. The researcher found much overlap in data source collecting, such as the student progress report composed of open-ended questions and another open-ended questionnaire, both of which were intended to help students recognize how they develop their learning experience. It seemed that students made repeated statements about the same learning content of every unit. The research instruments could have been lessened and the research design could also have been simplified to make the curriculum delivering much more efficient and effective in the short period of instruction.
4. It is difficult for a teacher who embraces multiple intelligences to teach all content through all eight intelligence modes. And this is not to say that a teacher should consistently avoid certain intelligence because it is out of his/her comfort zone. Instead, teachers should team up with colleagues so that they can increase both their own and their students’ educational options. Like the successful assistant presence of Geo-Science teacher and some other art teachers in this study, interdisciplinary curriculums or team teaching can be an effective way for teachers to plan and teach in team based on their intelligence strengths. Thinking in interdisciplinary terms, senior high school teachers can just as easily adopt the theory, because senior high schools typically offer liberal arts programs, most of which already feature a comprehensive multiple intelligences curriculum. Student can quickly get acquainted and thus identify their future experts through their specific intelligences in this way of interdisciplinary curriculum.
5. This study was basically a summative evaluation on the application of the MI theory in senior high English class. It focused on students’ finished project works and reflections on the process of engagement; that is, the curriculum design puts an emphasis on both process and product. On the contrary, in this study a formative evaluation on students’ progress of English proficiency was considered insufficient and less evident in research instrument administration and statistic data collection. It is hoped that future researchers will prolong the administration period and enlarge the number of the study subjects, providing more persuasive empirical evidence to the recommendation of such an instruction.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ………………………………………………… iii
Chinese Abstract ………………………………………………… ix
English Abstract ………………………………………………… xii
Chapter
1. Introduction …………………………………………………… 1
1.1 Motivation …………………………………………………… 1
1.2 Purpose of the Study …………………………………………3
1.3 Research Questions ………………………………………… 4
1.4 Significance of the Study ………………………………… 4
2. Literature Review …………………………………………… 6
2.1 Introduction ………………………………………………… 6
2.2 The Multiple Intelligences Theory …………………… 7
2.2.1 Background of the theory ………………………………7
2.2.2 Views of Gardner’s MI theory ………………………… 8
2.2.3 Researches or teaching practice of MI theory in English
Teaching …………………11
2.3 Authentic Assessment: An MI-based Model ……………… 12
3. Research Methodology ………………………………………… 16
3.1 Research Design ……………………………………………… 16
3.2 Subjects ……………………………………………………… 18
3.3 Procedures …………………………………………………… 19
3.4 Instrumentation ………………………………………………… 21
3.5 MI-based Curriculum Design ………………………………… 27
3.6 Data Collection and Analysis ……………………………… 33
4. Results And Discussion ………………………………………… 36
4.1 Learning Attitude Scale ……………………………………… 36
4.2 Transcriptions of Teacher-Student Conference …………… 45
4.3 Student Progress Report ……………………………………… 58
4.4 Open-ended Questionnaire Survey …………………………… 59
4.5 Statistic Analysis of the GEPT Scores …………………… 72
5. Conclusions And Suggestions ………………………………… 76
5.1 Conclusion ………………………………………………………76
5.1.1 Findings on students ……………………………………… 76
5.1.2 Benefits and problems of using student’s portfolio … 78
5.1.3 Summary of the teacher’s roles ………………………… 79
5.1.4 Pedagogical implications …………………………………… 80
5.2 Suggestions for the Further Research……………………… 82
References …………………………………………………………… 85
Appendix
A. Authorization ………………………………………… 91
B. Teaching Plan for MI-based Instruction Unit
B1. The 921Earthquake …………………… 92
B2. Robert Frost And His Poems …………96
C. Multiple Intelligences Unit Checklist ……… 100
D. Problem-solving Task for MI Unit
D1. Evacuation …………………………… 102
D2. To Move Or Not to Move …………… 105
D3. American Family Life .…....………108
D4. Space Aliens, Unite! ……………… 111
D5. Help! I’m Just a Foreign Student! 113
E. Teacher-Student Conference Transcriptions
E1. Student No. 10 and No. 11 ………… 118
E2. Student No. 2, No. 6, No. 8 and No. 9 125
E3. Student No. 7 …………………………… 136
E4. Student No. 4 and No. 5 ……………… 143
E5. Student No. 1 and No. 3 ……………… 148
F. Pre Project Learning Contract …………………… 155
G. Project Timeline …………………………………… 156
H. Project Quality
H1. Presentation Evaluation ……………… 157
H2. Peer Evaluation (1) …………………… 158
H3. Peer Evaluation (2) …………………… 159
I. Student Progress Report ………………………… 160
J. Student Multiple Intelligences Profile ………… 167
K. MI Students-Generated Inventory ……………… 168
L. Open-Ended Questionnaire ………………………… 174

REFERENCES
Armstrong, T. (1997). Multiple Intelligences: Seven ways to approach curriculum. Educational Leadership, 52(3), 26-28.
Baker, C. (1992). Attitudes and language. Multilingual Matters: UK.
Barton, J. & Collins, A. Eds. (1997). Portfolio Assessment: A handbook for educators. New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Bawcom, L. (2000). It made me think. Met, 9 (4), 59-63.
Borich, G. (Ed) (1996). Effective Teaching Methods. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Bounds, C. & Harrison, L. (1997). In New South Wales: The Brain-Flex Project. Educational leadership, 52(3), 69-75.
Campbell, L. (1997). How teachers interpret MI theory. Educational Leadership, 55(1), 14-19.
Chao, T. C. (1999 a). Advancing EFL learners’ grammatical competence through MI-based whole language instruction. The Proceedings of the 17th Conference on English Teaching and Learning (pp. 486-492). Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co. Ltd.
Chao, T. C. (1999 b). Designing an effective reading/writing MI Whole Language workshop: A lesson plan for LEP learners. The Proceedings of the 16th Conference on English Teaching and Learning (pp. 525-533). Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co. Ltd.
Chao, T. C. (2000). Authentic assessment in the EFL school context: An MI-based model. The Proceedings of the 17th Conference on English Teaching and Learning (pp. 486-496). Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co. Ltd.
Chen, C. Y. (2001). What are the important implications for educators of Howard Gardner’s theory of Multiple Intelligences. Journal of National Taichung Teachers College, 15, 171-189.
Christison, M. A. (1996). Teaching and learning languages through multiple intelligences. TESOL Journal, 5(3), 4-9.
Christison, M. A. (1998). Applying Multiple Intelligences Theory in preservice and inservice TEFL educational programs. English Teaching Forum, Apr-Jun, 2-13.
Covington, M. V. & Teel, K. M. (1996). Overcoming student failure: Changing motives and incentives for learning. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier, Macmillan.
Emig, V. B. (1997). A multiple intelligences inventory. Educational Leadership, 51(1), 47-50.
Freedman, A. L. H. (1994). Open-ended questioning: A handbook for Educators. New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. & Hatch, T. (1989). Multiple intelligences go to school: Educational implications of the theory of Multiple intelligences. Educational Researcher, 18(8), 4-10.
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple Intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1997). Multiple Intelligences as a partner in school improvement. Educational Leadership, 55(1), 20-21.
Graves, D. H. & Sunstein, B. S. (Ed.) (1992). Portfolio Portraits. Portsmouth, NH: University of New Hampshire.
Greenhawk, J. (1997). Multiple Intelligences meet standards. Educational Leadership, 55(1), 62-64.
Hart, D. (1994). Authentic assessment: A handbook for educators. New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Heyer, S. (1983). Picture stories for beginning composition. New York: Regents.
Hoerr, T. R. (1994). How the New City School applies the multiple intelligences. Educational Leadership, 52(3), 29-32.
Husen, T. (Ed.) (1985). The international Encyclopedia of education, 9. Oxford et al: Pergamn Press.
Lazear, D. (1991). Seven ways of teaching. Palatine, IL: IRI/Skylight Training & Publishing Inc.
Lazear, D. (1999). Eight ways of teaching: The artistry of eight ways of teaching with Multiple Intelligences (3rd ed.). Skylight Training & Publishing Inc.
Lin, B. Y. (2001). Multiple intelligences theory and English language teaching. Retrieved July 20, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://highschool.english.nccu.edu.tw/paper.htm
Mabry, L. (1999). Portfolios plus: A critical guide to alternative assessment. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press, Inc.
Meyer, M. (1997). The greening of learning: Using the eighth intelligence. Educational Leadership, 55(1), 32-34.
Murphy, S. & Smith, M. S. (1992). Writing portfolios: A bridge from teaching assessment. Markham, Ontario: Pippin Publishing Limited.
Sarouphim, K. M. (1999). Discovering Multiple Intelligences through a performance-based assessment: Consistency with independent ratings. Exceptional Children, 65(2), 151-161.
Scherer, M. (1999). The understanding pathway: A conversation with Howard Gardner. Educational Leadership, 57(3), 12-16.
Silver, H., Strong, R., & Perini, M. (1997). Integrating learning styles and Multiple Intelligences. Educational Leadership, 55(1), 22-27.
Shoemaker, C. L. (1991). Interactive techniques for the ESL classroom. New York: Newbury House.
Spandel, V. & Stiggins, R. J. (1990). Creating writing: Linking assessment and writing instruction. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Sternberg, R.J. (1986). Practical intelligence. London: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R.J. Ed. (1994). Thinking and problem solving. Boston: Academic Press.
Thornbury, S. (2000). Reading and writing as arithmetic: Is learning a language like learning maths? Modern English Teacher, 9(4), 12-15.
Tombari, M. & Borich, G. (1999). Authentic assessment in the classroom: Applications and practice. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Vialle, W. (1997). In Australia: MI in multiple settings. Educational Leadership, 55(1), 65-69.
Ward, A. W. & Murray-Ward, M. (1999). Assessment in the classroom. New York: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Wiggins, G. (1989). Educative assessment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
王為國。2000。《國民小學應用多元智能理論的歷程分析與評估之研究》。國立台灣師範大學教育研究所博士論文。
田耐青。2000。<多元智慧理論在親子教育上的應用>。《教師天地》。第106期：33-50。
江文慈 (Chian)。1999。<一個新評量理念的探討：多元智力取向的評量>。《現代教育論壇（四）》。10-18。
江雪齡。2000。<從多元智能談課程設計>。《中等教育─九年一貫課程專題》。51(1): 43-52。
呂枝益。1999。<分數主義下的學習困境與出路>。《中等教育》。50(2): 103-112。
李心瑩 譯。2000。《再建多元智慧：21 世紀的發展前景與實際應用》。(Translated from Gardner, H. 2000. Intelligence reframed: multiple intelligences for the 21st century. Big Apple Tuttle-Mori Agency, Inc.)。台北：遠流。
李平 譯。1997。《經營多元智慧：開展以學生為中心的教學》。(Translated from Armstrong, T. 1994. Multiple Intelligences in the classroom. New York: St. Martin Press.)。台北：遠流出版社。
李珀。2000。<多元智慧與教學>。《教師天地》。第106期：22-32。
周祝瑛。2000。<從多元智慧看國內教改的可能性>。《教師天地》。第106期：11-13。
林山太。2000。<活化高中校園學習生活的推手~談多元智能表現與高中學生學習檔案~>。《板中學報》。第三期：1-14。
林奕宏。2000。《多元智能與問題解決整合型教學模式對國小學生學習表現之影響》。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所碩士論文。
邱麗雅 (Chio, Li-yeh)。2000。《多元智慧理論在國小英語科教學運作歷程之探究─一個國小英語教師的個案觀察研究》。國立台北師範學院課程與教學研究所碩士論文。
侯雅齡。2000。<如何有效運用多元評量結果>。《測驗與輔導》。3339-3341。
封四維 ( Feng, Sweet)。1997。<淺談多元智慧與理解理念>。《教師新思維論文選輯》。台北：師大。
封四維 ( Feng, Sweet)。1998。《多元智慧之教學實踐---一個教師的行動研究》。國立台灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文。
封四維 ( Feng, Sweet)。2000。《多元智慧教學─以國中英語科為例》。台北：師大。
洪蘭。2000。<多元智慧>。《教師天地》。第106期：8-10。
張敏雪。1999。<教室內的實作評量>。《現代教育論壇（四）》。35-39。
張稚美。2000。<學校實踐多元智慧論的方針和挑戰>。《文教新潮》。5(1): 29-35。
莊明貞。1999。<真實性評量在教育改革中的相關論題─一個多元文化教育觀點的思考>。《現代教育論壇（四）》。28-34。
郭俊賢•陳淑惠 譯。1999。《多元智慧的教與學》。(Translated from Campbell, L. & Campbell, B. 1996. Teaching & learning through Multiple Intelligences. Allen & Bacon)。台北：遠流。
郭俊賢•陳淑惠 譯。2000。《落實多元智慧教學評量》。(Translated from Lazear, D. 1999. Multiple intelligences approaches to assessment. Zephyr Press.)。台北：遠流。
陳佩正 譯。2001。《多元智慧融入教與學與領導》。(Translated from Hoerr, T. R. 2000. Becoming a multiple intelligences school. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Translation.)。台北：遠流。
陳智弘。2000。<多元智慧與國文教學>。《教師天地》。第106期：51-55。
楊式美。2000。<檔案評量範例舉隅>。《敦煌英語教學雜誌》。 30: 22-26。
粱雲霞 譯。2000。《多元智慧和學生成就─六所中小學的成功實例》。(Translated from Campbell, L. & Campbell, B. 1999. Multiple intelligences and student achievement: Success stories from six schools. ASCD.) 。台北：遠流。
葉錫南。2000。<英語科檔案評量於中小學之實施>。《敦煌英語教學雜誌》。 30: 11-13。
趙子嘉 。1999。<談霍華德加納的多元智能論和英語教學>。《英語教學》。24(2): 47-62。
蔡明富。1998。<多元智能理論及其在教育上的應用>。《初等教育學報》。11: 305-334。
盧貞穎。2000。<讓學生做學習的主人─檔案評量應用與省思>。《敦煌英語教學雜誌》。 30: 15-21。
盧雪梅。1999。<實作評量的應許、難題和挑戰>。《現代教育論壇（四）》。3-9。
顏佩如 (Yan)。2000。<多元智慧在教學的反思>。《中等教育--教學革新專論》。51(3): 82-93。