跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(3.235.140.84) 您好!臺灣時間:2022/08/15 01:54
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

: 
twitterline
研究生:陳埩淑
研究生(外文):ching-shu chen
論文名稱:「課的結構」之研究─以國中三年級歷史科為例
指導教授:方德隆方德隆引用關係陳密桃陳密桃引用關係
學位類別:博士
校院名稱:國立高雄師範大學
系所名稱:教育學系
學門:教育學門
學類:綜合教育學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2002
畢業學年度:90
語文別:中文
中文關鍵詞:課的結構參與結構
外文關鍵詞:lessonlesson structureparticipant structure
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:20
  • 點閱點閱:1188
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:322
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:8
本研究旨在探討國三歷史課「課的結構」。本研究以高雄市某國中三年級的四個班級及二位歷史老師的教學作觀察研究。
本研究列出四項的研究目的分別探究「課的結構」相關理論與研究、個案班級歷史課「課的結構」之內涵、瞭解個案班級歷史課「課的結構」之形成以及分析個案班級歷史課的「課的結構」之影響因素。
本研究的研究方法是以質的研究為主,採用教育民族誌、互動民族誌及教學研究的社會-語言典範從事探討。蒐集資料的方法以觀察及訪談與文件分析為主,而在研究資料的分析上,以紮根理論編碼,形成概念之後再歸納出研究結果。蒐集資料的時間從民國八十八年九月進入教室一學年作觀察,訪談及蒐集資料則持續到論文完稿為止。
本研究的結果,發現歷史課「課的結構」:
一、課的結構內涵
在課程與教學實施下,歷史課「課的結構」是老師由上而下以目標取向設計教學,「課」的活動類型,分別有「課」前預備期、「教學時期」及「課」的結束期,「教學時期」是「課」的核心。師生由溝通系統引入主題相關組的教與學,在階層組織中以學科知識為主,而內容結構則以傳遞事實為基本概念。最後,學習規準則取決於記憶事實的多少。
二、課的結構形成
「課的結構」是由老師主導形成,課堂的互動模式仍是傳統「老師講-學生聽」的模式。課堂上有互動的條件、目的及一套期望的參與規則形成參與結構,「參與結構」中課堂發言權的分配有一定的機制,參與結構以「一對全班」的類型居多,歷史課教室言談共同呈現的現象是老師言談內容以學術性的內容講授為主,學生自發性的言談被忽略,教師主導「課的結構」的形成。
三、影響「課的結構」的因素
「課的結構」受參與對象、學科內容及脈絡因素影響,參與者除了教師具絕對權威主導「課的結構」之外,學生的學習經驗影響到「課的結構」、學科內容的改變,也促使教師改變「課」的步調和活動類型。在脈絡的因素上,有學校行政措施、新升學制度的衝擊、教學資源等因素影響到「課的結構」。
依據本研究的結論對下列對象提出建議:
一、教師
教師幫助學生掌握「課的結構」、教師應跳脫出教科書的依賴,教學內容組織應重視統整性,教學內容反映出學生的生活經驗,並能擴展戶外教學,教學內容的傳遞應善用多元媒體的教學,且師生共同建構對話分享的情境。
二、學校
賦權給教師,讓教師有安排課程的自主權、學校提供教師的支援系統,協助提升教師教學專業能力。
三、師資培育機構
師資培育機構應重視培養學生課程設計的能力,從實習教學演練中,習得編選教學計畫、學科教學、分析知識結構,以及課程評鑑的能力,能兼具課程及教學的專業知能。
四、教育行政機關
教育行政當局應提供新政指導及諮詢服務,且教育行政當局宜主動到學校提供專業輔導服務,如由國教輔導團定期到學校幫助教師改進教學。
五、對研究的建議
持續主題的研究以不同的班級類型及不同的教學法作相同主題的研究,擴大學生課程經驗的研究。
The purpose of this research is to explore (1) theories of structure lessons, (2) the content of the structure lessons, (3) the construction of structure lessons in history classes, (4) the affecting factors of structure lesson.
Educational ethnography, International ethnography and Sociolinguistic paradigm were adopted, to illustrate how to construct an understanding of what counted as structure lessons. The subjects of this research were four classes and two teachers. Observation, interview and analyzing documents are used to collect data, and analyzing data is according to grounded theory as the method.
The findings of this research were as following: First; the structure of history lesson has a sequential origination and hierarchical origination. The lesson unfolds through time from beginning to end, but instructional phase is the core of the lesson. Topic related sets of instruction and learning were guided by communicating symbolic system in the classroom. Hierarchical origination contains basic sequences, which is the fact of history, and test the amount of remembrance of the history. Second, classroom activities sustain a sense of social order that classroom participants enga
ge in interaction work. Teachers and students follow turn-allocation machinery that achieves the orderly progression of interaction in lesson. Teachers control all classroom discourse that shows the participant structure is teacher to all students talk. Third, there are some factors to affect structure lessons, such as teacher, students, subject content, school policy, academic assessment of student achievement and teach supporting system. Finally, the research findings would provide suggestions for teaching, teacher institutes and education administration according to the conclusions just mentioned.
Key word: lessons, structure lessons, participant structure.
目 錄
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
 第二節 研究目的與待答問題 3
 第三節 名詞釋義 5
 第四節 研究限制 7
第二章 文獻探討 9
第一節 「課的結構」的相關概念 9
第二節 「課的結構」的序列和階層組 17
第三節 「課的結構」的形成 24
第四節 影響「課的結構」的因素 42
第五節 「課的結構」的相關研究 55
第六節 歷史教學 61
第三章 研究方法 71
 第一節 研究典範 71
 第二節 研究場景 75
 第三節 研究歷程 92
第四節 資料分析 109
第四章 研究結果與討論(一) 126
第一節 「課」前預備階段 126
第二節 教學階段 156
第三節 「課」的結束階段 187
第四節 發現與討論 194
第五章 研究結果與討論(二) 212
第一節 班級互動的節奏 212
第二節 參與結構的形成 241
第三節 參與結構的改變 287
第四節 發現與討論 305
第六章 結論與建議 321
第一節 結論 321
第二節 建議 329
後記 335
參考書目 337
附錄
附錄一 觀察時間表 350
附錄二 課程事件記錄表 351
附錄三 轉譯的符號與舉例 352
附錄四 訪談問題的範例 353
附錄五 梁、柯老師訪談記錄表 354
附錄六 學生問卷 355
圖 次
圖2-1 課的結構圖 18
圖2-2 課的階層 23
圖2-3 課的組成 24
圖2-4 Shulman的教學研究綱要 46
表 次
表3-1 教師的背景資料 .84
表3-2 柯老師一堂課的語錄分析 118
表5-1 個案班級學生與互動的課堂次數 256
參考書目
一、中文部分
王文科 (民83) 課程與教學論。台北:五南圖書出版有限公司。
王怡甯 (民89) 開啟小學生活之門:一年級教師的教師信念之質化研究。國立台南師範學院碩士論文。
王建文(民88) 九年一貫新課程架構下的歷史基本學力指標、評量與教學設計。國民中小學課程教學研討會,國立高雄師範大學,八十八年四月,123-162。
宋在欣 (民88) 國民小學啟智班語文課教室言談分析。國立高雄師範大學特殊教育學系碩士論文。
吳如雅 (民86) 國中英語教師處理學生說話權之研究。國立彰化師範大學英語研究所碩士論文。
周孟玲 (民83) 兒童學習歷史的進程。清華大學歷史教學,3期,5-15。
周淑卿 (民87) 國定課程:徘徊在自由與控制之間。課程與教學季刊,1(4),13-28。
高強華 (民81) 教師信念研究又其在學校教育革新上的意義。國立台灣大學教育研究所集刊,34,85-114。
徐宗國譯 (民85) 紮根理論研究法:淵源、原則、技術與涵意。胡幼慧主編 質性研究:理論、方法及本土女性研究實例,47-74。台北:巨流圖書公司。
徐宗國譯 (民86) 質性研究的概念。台北:巨流圖書公司。
張元 (民85) 歷史教學需要轉型,清華大學歷史教學,7期,1-3。
張元 (民86) 方法論:歷史意識與歷史教科書分析編寫,發表於國際學術研究會。清華大學人文社會學院。民國八十六年二月十七、十八日,新竹。
孫仲山、李碧娟 (民86) 國民中學教學情境中師生語言行為的分析,教育研究資訊,5(2),89-100。
畢恆達 (民85) 詮釋學與質性研究。胡幼慧主編 質性研究:理論、方法及本土女性研究實例,27-46。台北:巨流圖書公司。
崔允漷(民84)教學研究的社會-語言典範述評。教育研究雙月刊,3(2),116-126。
教育部 (民83) 國民中學課程標準。台北:教育部。
陳秋月 (民83) 國小二年級兒童的言談世界: 言談內容和參與架構的分析。國立台北師範學院初等教育研究所碩士論文。
陳冠華 (民86) 英國近三十年中學歷史教育改革之探討。國立清華大學歷史研究所碩士論文。
陳豐祥 (民90) 歷史學科的知識組織與課程設計。人文及社會學科教學通訊,16(6),21-35。
陳埩淑 (民84) 國民中學歷史教科書課程目標、教材編輯及實施現況之研究。國立高雄師範大學教育學系碩士論文。
張明卿 (民86) 談台灣地區中學歷史科教學現象─兼談對未來「認識台灣」教科書之展望。國民中學新課程教材專題輯,國立編譯館通訊,9(2),31-34。
黃玉冠 (民83) 鄉土教材發展與實施之分析研究:以宜蘭縣為例。國立台灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文。
黃光雄、蔡清田 (民88) 課程設計─理論與實際。台北:五南圖書出版公司。
黃淮英 (民87) 從英語教室互動分析教師言談功能。國立高雄師範大學英語系碩士論文。
黃曉瑋 (民88) 教室中師生語言互動之研究─以國小補校為例。國立臺灣師範大學社會教育系碩士論文。
黃瑞琴 (民80) 質的教育研究方法。台北:心理出版社。
黃炳煌(民80) 課程理論之基礎。台北:文景。
歐用生 (民84) 質的研究。台北:師大書苑。
蔡敏玲 (民85) 眾聲喧嘩中,看誰在說話?幼稚園及小學教室互動方式的節奏與變奏,教育資料與研究,12,3-20。
蔡敏玲、彭海燕譯 (民87) 教室言談:教與學的語言。【Cazden, C.B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning , NH:Heinemann 】台北:心理出版社。
錢清泓 (民85) 在熟悉與陌生之間的一堂課:國小本土語言教學課之分析研究。國立台北師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
錢清泓 (民87)「課」:結構之分析及其教學意義之探討,課程與教學,1(1),143-156。
鄭文芳 (民86) 國中歷史教科書在教師教學歷程中使用情形之探討。國立成功大學教育研究所碩士論文。
劉蔚之 (1992) 一所山地學校的多元文儘教育之俗民誌研究。國立台灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文。
簡紅珠 (民81) 教學研究的主要派典及其啟示之探析。高雄:復文圖書版社。
戴寶村 (民87) 國民中學學生概念學習學術研討會--歷史科引言。國立台灣大學教務處、教育學程中心。民國八十七年十二月十、十一日。
二、英文部份
Ross, A. (2000). Curriculum :Construction and critique. NY: Famlmer Press.
Ares, W. (1998). Constructing a classroom community. University of Arizona . Dissertation of Doctor of Philosophy . wwwlib.umi.com. dissertations preview, 4-5.
Aulls, M. W. (1998). Contributions of classrooms to what content students learn during curriculum enactment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 56-69.
Barker, L. L.(1982). Communication in the classroom. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Baker, C. D. & Freebody, P. (1989). Talk around text: Constructions of textual and teacher authority in classroom discourse. In S. de Castell, A. Luke & C. Luke (Eds.), Language authority criticism (pp. 233-234). New York: The Falmer Press.
Barr, R. (1987). Classroom interaction and curricular content. In D. Bloome (Ed.), Literacy and schooling (pp.159-168). New Jersey: Albex Publishing Corporation.
Barton, A. (1998). Examining the social and scientific roles of invention in science education. Research in Science Education, 28, 133-152.
Bellack, A., Kliebard, H. M. Hyman, & R. T. Smith (1966). The language of the classroom. New York : Teacher College Press.
Bloome, D. & Willett, J. (1991). Toward the micropolitics of classroom interaction. In J. Blasé (Ed),The politics of life in schools, power, conflict, and cooperation (pp.207-236). Newbury park, Calif: Sage Publications.
Bryman, A. & Bugess, R., G. (Eds). (1998). Qualitative research. London: Sage.
Brantlinger, J. (1991). Low income adolescents’ perceptions of social class related peer affiliations in school. Interchange, 22, 9-27.
Bruner, J. (1999). Folk pedagogy. In J. Leach & B. Moon (Eds.), Learner and pedagogy. London: SAGE Publications Company.
Carlsen, W. S. (1997). Subject-matter knowledge and science teaching: A pragmatic perspective. Advances in Research on Teaching, 2, 115-143.
Carlsen, W. S. & Hall, K. (1992). Never ask a question if you don’t know the answer: The tension in teaching between modeling scientific arguments and maintaining law and order. Journal of Classroom Interatction, 32(2), 14-34.
Carlsen,W. S.(1993). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth : Heinemann.
Castanheira, M. L., Crawford,T., Dixon,C. N. & Green, J. L. (1998). Interactional ethnography: An approach to studying the social construction of literate practices. Presented in University of California , Sata Barbara. Mar.30, 1998.
Cazden, C. B. (1986). Classroom discourse. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 432-463). New York: Macmillan.
Cazden, C. B.(1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books.
Cochran, J. P. (1997). What’s ‘common’ in a common core: How course structure shapes disciplinary knowledge. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 32(2), 45-55.
Collins, E. & Green, J. L.(1992). Learning in classroom settings: Making or breaking a culture, In H. H. Marshall (Ed.), Redefining student learning:Roots educational change(pp.54-85). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Cothran, D. J., & Ennis, C. D. (1997). Students’ and teacher’s perceptions of conflict and power. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13( 5), 541-553.
Cornbleth, G. (1988). Curriculum in and out of context. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 3(2), 85-96.
Crawford, T., Chen , C. & Kelly, G. J. (1997). Creating authentic opportunities for presenting science: The influence of audience of student talk. Journal of Classroom Interaction. 32(2), 1-13.
Crawford, T., Kelly, G., & Brown, C. (2000). Ways of knowing beyond facts and laws of science: An ethnographic investigation of student engagement in scientific practices. Research in Science Education, 37(3), 237-258.
Denscombe, M. (1985). Classroom control: A sociological perspective. London: Allen and Unwin.
Delamont, S. & Hamilton, D. (1976). Classroom research: A critique and a new approach. In M. Stubbs & S. Delamont (Eds.) Explorations in classroom observation (pp.3-22). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
DeStefano, J. S., Pepinsky, H.B. & Sanders, T. S. (1982). Discuouse rules for literacy learning in a classroom. L. C. Wilkinson (Ed.), Communicating in a classroom (pp.101-130). New York: Academic Press, Inc.
Dillon, D. & Searle, D. (1981). The role of language in one first grade classroom. Research in the Teaching of English, 15 (4), 311-328.
Doyle, W.& Carter, K. (1984). Academic tasks in classroom. Curriculum Inquiry 14(2), 129-149.
Doyle, W. (1992). Curriculum and pedagogy. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp.486-516). New York: Macmillan.
Edwards, D. & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The development of understanding in the classroom. London: Routledge.
Edwards, A. D. & Westgate D. P. G. (1994). Investigating classroom talk. Philadlphia: The Falmer Press.
Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago & London : The University of Chicago Press.
Ennis C. (1997). Students’ and teacher''''s perceptions of conflict and power. Teaching and Teacher Education. 13(5), 541-553.
Erickson, F. (1982). Classroom discourse as improvisation: Relationships between academic task structure and social participation structure in lessons In L. C. Wilkinson (Ed), Communicating in the classroom. New York: Academic Press.
Erickson ,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.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis : Papers in the critical study of language. New York : Longman Group Limited.
Fetterman, D. M. (1998). Ethnography: Step by step. London: Sage Publication Inc.
Garvey, B. & Krug , J. (1977). Models of history teaching in the secondary school, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Glatthorn, A. A. (1987). Curriculum leadership. Glenview, Ill: Scott Foresman & Co.
Gohlich, M. & Wagenr-Willi, M. (2001). School as a ritual institution. Pedogogy, Culture and Society, 9(2), 237-248.
Goodlad, J. I. (1979). The scope of curriculum field. In Goodlad, J. I. Et al., Curriculum inquiry: The study of curriculum practice. N. Y.:McGraw-Hill.
Green, J. L. (1983). Research on teaching as a linguistic process: A state of the art. In E. W. Gordon (Ed.), Review of Research in Education.,(10), 174-186.
Green, J. L. (2000). Consequence progression: A contrastive analysis of science .
Invited Workshop. In National Taiwan Normal University, December, 11-13.
Green, J. L. & Dixon, C. (1994). The social construction of classroom life. International Encyclopedia of English and the Language Arts, A. Purves (Ed),Vol.2, pp.1075-1078. New York. Http://www.skeptron.ilu.uu.se/ broady/edu-research/hsem.htm
Green, J., Dixon, C. & Zaharlick, A.,(2000). Ethnography as a logic of inquiry. Presented in the Conference of the Analyses of Teacher-Student’s Dialogue in Interaction . Dec.11-13. Taiwan Normal University.
Green, J, L., Harker, J. O. & Golden, J. M. (1987). Lesson construction. In C. Wilkinson (Ed.), Communication in the classroom (pp. 183-222). New York: Academic Press.
Green, J. L., & Weade, R. (1987). In search of meaning: A sociolinguistic perspective on lesson construction and reading. In D. Bloome (Ed.), Literacy and schooling (pp.4-34). New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Green, J. L., Weade, G. & Graham, K. (1988). Lesson constructions and student participation: A sociolinguistic analysis. In J. L. Green, and J. O. Karker (Eds.), Multiple perspectives analyses of classroom discourse (pp. 11-47). Norwood , NJ:Ablex.
Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, R. S. (1991). Effective evaluation. CA: Jossey-Bass Pub.
Gumperz , J. (1992). Contextualization and understanding. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. (pp.229-252). New York.: Cambridge University Press.
Harker, J. O. (1988). Contrasting the content of two story-reading. lesson: A propositional analysis. In J. L. Green & J. O. Harker (Eds.), Multiple perspectives analyses of classroom discourse (pp.49-69). Norwood, N.J.:Ablex.
Hammersley, M. (1990). Classroom ethnography. London: Emundsbury Press Ltd.
Hammersley, M. & Atkinson, P. (1995). Ethnography. London and New York : Routledge.
Hayden,T., Arthur, J., & Hunt, M. (1997). Learning to teach history in the secondary school. Page Bros Ltd, London , Great Britain.
Hickman, S. (1998). Social significance of patterns of questioning in classroom discourse. http://cla.libart,calpoly.edu/~jbattenb/papers/hickman.html. 12, Apr. 1998.
Jackson, P. W. (1968). Life in classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Kansanen P.(1981). The way thinking is : How do teachers think and decide? In: E Komulainen & P. Kansen (Eds), Classroom analysis: Concept, findings, applications. Institute of Education, University of Helsinki, Helsinki.
Kelly, A. V. (1989). The curriculum: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). London: Paul Chapman Pub. Ltd.
Kelly, G. J.& Green, J. (1998). The social nature of knowing : Toward a sociocultural perspective on conceptual change and knowledge construction. In B. Guzzett, & C. Hyrd (Eds.), Perspectives on conceptual change: Multiple ways to understand knowing and learning in a complex world (pp.145-180), New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associaties, Inc.
Kimberly, H. (1994). Managing classroom discourse: An examination of teacher/students interaction. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Western States Communication Association (San Jose, CA, February 23-27)。
Kirk, J. & Miller, M. (1986). Reliability and validity in qualitative research. London: Sage.
Kraker, M. J. (2000). Classroom discourse: Teaching, learning, and learning disabilities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 295-313 .
Leavine, N. (1981). Language, teaching and learning: History. London WLE.
Lemke, J. L. (1989). The language of science teaching. In C. Emihovick (Ed.), Locating learning: Ethnographic perspectives on classroom research (pp.216-239). Norwood. NJ: Ablex.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, N.J. :Ablex.
Lincoln, Y., S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Calif : Sage.
LINNÉ, A. (2001). The lesson as a pedagogic text: A case study of lesson designs. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33(2), 129-156.
Loewen, J. W. (1996). Lies my teacher told me─Everything your American history textbooks got wrong. New York:Touchstone.
Lortie, D. C.(1975). School teacher. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Luke, C., de Castell, S. & Luke, A. (1989). Beyond criticism: The authority of the school textbook. In S. de Castell, A. Luke & C. Luke (Eds.), Language authority criticism (pp. 245-260). New York: The Falmer Press.
Lukinsky, J., & Schachter, L. (1998). Questions in human and classroom discourse. Coalition for the Advancement of Jewish Education. http:// www. Caje.org/a_lukin.htm. March 7,1998.
Martin, D., & Miller, C.(1999). Language and the curriculum: Practitioner research in planning differentiation. London: David Fulton Publishers.
McHoul, A. (1978). The organizagion of turns of formal talk in the classroom, Language in Society, 7, 183-213.
McLaren, P. (1993). Schooling as a ritual performance. London:Rontledge.
Mehan, H. (1979a). Learning lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University press.
Mehan, H. (1979b). What time is it, Denis? Asking known-information questions in classroom practice. Theory into Practice, 18( 4), 285-294.
Mohr, K, A. J. (1998). Teacher talk: A summary analysis of effective teachers’ discourse during primary literacy lessons. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 32(2),16-23.
Morgan-Fleming, B., & Doyle, W. (1997). Children’s interpretations of curriculum events. Teaching and Teacher Education. 13(5), 499-511.
Nassbaum, J. F. (1992). Effective teacher behaviors. Communication Education, 41, 167-180.
Nassaji, H., & Wells, G. (2000). What’s the use of “Triadic dialogue?” : An investigation of teacher-student interaction. Developing inquiring communities in education project. FL: University of Toronto. http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/~gwells/Followup.html
Ng, S. H., & Bardac, J. J. ( 1993). Power in language: Verbal communication and social influence. Newbruy Park, CA: Sage.
Olson, D. R. (1989). On the language and authority of textbooks. In S. de Castell, A. Luke & C. Luke (Eds.), Language authority criticism (pp.233-234), New York: The Falmer Press.
Orona, C. J.(1997). Temporality and identity loss due to Alzheimer’s disease. In A. Strauss, & J. Corbin (Eds.), Grounded theory in practice (pp.171-196), London: Sage.
Page, N. R. (2000). The turn inward in qualitative research. Harvard Educational Review, 70(1), 23-37.
Pam, D. (1997).Teaching thinking: Some answers, but mostly questions. National University of Singapore, International Conference on Thinking 1-6 June, 1997, Singapore.
Philips, S. (1972). Participant structures and communicative competence :Warm springs children in community and classroom, in Cazden, J. V. P. & Hmyes, D. (Eds.), Function of language in the classroom, New York: Teacher College Press , 370-394.
Philips, S. (1983). The invisible culture: Communication in the classroom and community on the warm springs Indian Reservation. New York: Longman.
Posner J.G. (1995). Analyzing the curriculum. New York : McGraw-Hill.
Posner J.G & Rudnitsky A. N. (1997). Course design: A guide to curriculum development for teachers. New York : Longman.
Power, C. N. (1987). Responding. In M. J. Dunkin (Ed). The International Encyclopedio of Teaching and Teacher Education. 427-432.
Puro, P. & Bloome, D. (1987). Understanding classroom communication. Theroy into Practice, 16(1), 26-31.
Richmond, V. P. & McCroskey, J. C. (1992). Power in the classroom-communication, control and concern. New Jercy: Lawrence. Erlbaum Association , Inc. Publishers.
Sainsbury, M. (1992). Meaning, communication and understanding in the classroom. Aldershot England, Avebury.
Santa Barbara Classroom Discourse Group (1992). Constructing literacy in classrooms: Literate action as social accomplishment. In H., H Marshall (Ed), Redefining student learning : Roots of educational change. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Schrag, F. (1992). Conceptions of knowledge. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp.268-301). New York: Macmillan.
Shirley, B. H. (2000). Linguistics in the study of language in education. Harvard Educational Review, 70(1), 49-59.
Shulman, L. S. (1986a). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching : A contemporary perspective. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.) (pp. 3-36). New York: Macmillan
Shulman, L . S. (1986 b). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Research, 15(2), 4-14.
Shulman L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching foundations of the new reform . Harvard Educational Review, 57(1),5-12.。
Sinclair , J. M. & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: the English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.
Skilbeck, M. (1984). School-based curriculum development. London: Harper & Row.
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J.(1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded on theory procedures and techniques. ,2nd ed. London: Sage Publication.
Stubbs, M. (1976). Keeping in touch: Some functions of teacher-talk. In M. Stubbs, and S. Delamont (Eds.), Explorations in classroom observation (pp.151-172). London : Wiley.
Van Dijk, T. V. (1997). Discourse as structure and process. London: Sage Publication.
Walker, A. (1984). Applied sociology of language: Vernacular languages and education. In P. Trudgill (Ed.), Applied Sociolinguistics. London: Academic Press.
Walker, D. (1990). Fundamentals of curriculum. Orlando, Florida: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers.
Weade, G., & Evertson, C. M. (1988). The construction of lessons in effective and less effective classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(3),189-213.
Weade, G. (1992). Locating learning in the times and space of teaching. In H. H. Marshall (Ed.), Redefining student learning: Roots of educational change (pp.87-119). Norwood, NJ: Ablex .
Weade, G. (1995). When content becomes process : Talking knowledge into meaning in a fourth grade mathematics lesson. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 30(2), 41-51.
Weade, R. (1985). Lesson construction and instructional management: An exploration of social and academic content demands within lessons. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
Wilkinson, L. C. (1982). Introduction: A sociolinguistic approach to communicating in the classroom. Wilkinson (Ed.). Communicating in a classroom (pp.1-17). New York: Academic Press. INC.
Wood , T., Cobb, P & Yackel, E. (1992). Change in learning mathematics: Change in teaching mathematics. In H. H. Marshall (Ed.), Redefining student learning: Roots of education change (pp.177-206). NJ, Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Wragg, E. C. (1994). Lesson structure. In H. Torsten & T. N. Poslethwaite (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education (pp 3385-3389) . England, Oxford: Kidlington.
Young, M. F. D. (1971). An approach to the study of curricula as socially organized knowledge. In F. D. M. Young (Ed.) Knowledge and Control: New directions for the sociology of education (pp.19-46). London: Collier-Macmillan.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
1. 2、 方嘉麟著,論資本三原則理論體系之內在矛盾,政大法學評論,第五十九期,民國八十七年六月。
2. 錢清泓 (民87)「課」:結構之分析及其教學意義之探討,課程與教學,1(1),143-156。
3. 蔡敏玲 (民85) 眾聲喧嘩中,看誰在說話?幼稚園及小學教室互動方式的節奏與變奏,教育資料與研究,12,3-20。
4. 陳豐祥 (民90) 歷史學科的知識組織與課程設計。人文及社會學科教學通訊,16(6),21-35。
5. 孫仲山、李碧娟 (民86) 國民中學教學情境中師生語言行為的分析,教育研究資訊,5(2),89-100。
6. 周淑卿 (民87) 國定課程:徘徊在自由與控制之間。課程與教學季刊,1(4),13-28。
7. 3、 方嘉麟著,關係企業專章管制控制力濫用之法律問題(一)-自我國傳統監控模式論專章設計之架構與缺憾,政大法學評論,第六十三期,民國八十九年六月。
8. 5、 王志誠著,論關係企業之立法與課題,證交資料,第四四五期,民國八十八年五月十五日。
9. 17、 吳克昌著,集中交易市場「借殼上市」之探討,證交資料,第四五二期,民國八十八年十二月。
10. 20、 吳桂茂著,子公司買回母公司股票及交叉持股問題探討,實用稅務,第二八九期,民國八十八年一月。
11. 23、 林青青、徐安平著,由台肥案論我國公營事業民營化,證交資料,第四五四期,民國八十九年二月。
12. 24、 林麗香著,企業取回自己股份之法律問題,臺北大學法學論叢,第四十八期。
13. 25、 邱秋芳著,公司收買自己股份銷除之日本法制探討,證交資料,第四四○期,民國八十七年十二月十五日。
14. 26、 邱秋芳著,公司為員工持股取得本公司股份之公司法修正建議,法令月刊,第五十二卷第五期,民國九十年五月。
15. 29、 邱秋芳著,庫藏股制度的利弊得失,實用稅務,第三○九期,二○○○年九月。