(34.239.150.57) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/04/14 22:13
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:::

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:劉新茹
研究生(外文):Hsin-ju Liu
論文名稱:發展線上跨國協同教學的評估準則
論文名稱(外文):Developing Criteria for Evaluating Online International Team Teaching Courses
指導教授:陳年興陳年興引用關係
指導教授(外文):Nian-Shing Chen
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立中山大學
系所名稱:資訊管理學系研究所
學門:電算機學門
學類:電算機一般學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2008
畢業學年度:96
語文別:中文
論文頁數:178
中文關鍵詞:教學準則線上跨國協同教學個案研究英語教學
外文關鍵詞:English teachingTeaching criteriaCase studyOnline international team teaching
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:5
  • 點閱點閱:305
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:75
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:2
由於網際網路的興起與學習科技的發展,使得同步網路教學得以實施。線上跨國教學可以增加教學環境的多樣性,激發更多元的想法,學習者無須出國也可以接觸不同文化背景的教學者與同儕。然而教學者與學習者的文化差異和電腦中介溝通的特性,使得線上跨國教學成為一個非常複雜的教學情境,也讓單一教學者無法妥善處理線上課程的相關事宜。過去跨國教學者聘請教學助教解決文化差距的問題,因此線上教學環境也可組成線上跨國協同教學團隊,將有助於線上跨國教學活動的實施。線上跨國協同教學團隊由不同國籍的教學者、教學助教和資訊技術助教組成,能有效降低前述文化差異與電腦中介所產生的問題。線上跨國協同教學情境是新興的教學情境,因此現場教學者與教育研究者均尚未深入探索此一教學情境,本研究以線上跨國協同教學為研究場域,探討此種教學情境的組成構面及當中的重要教學準則,給予教學者與學習者方向性的指引,以提升教學成效。本研究個案為國立中山大學資訊管理系「企業英語與溝通」線上跨國協同課程,研究者藉由參與觀察與深度訪談取得初級資料,並從課程討論板收集次級資料,運用現象學內容分析法進行資料分析。本研究發現線上跨國協同教學存在三大組成構面,分別為「線上跨國教學」、「教學團隊線上跨國合作」以及「互動工具」,並找出全部共17條準則。「線上跨國教學」構面中的6條準則給予教學者跨國教學的依循方針;「教學團隊線上跨國合作」構面中的5條準則給予教學者跨國合作的建議;而「互動工具」構面中的3條準則是有關於線上跨國協同課程使用的互動工具;其餘3條準則位於三大構面的各自交集處。文末依據各個準則的特性分別給予教學面、教材/系統面和學習面的適切建議,以供有志於從事線上跨國協同教學之研究者與教學者參考。
Due to the development of the broadband Internet access and advanced learning technology, online synchronous teaching with teachers and students located at many different countries becomes feasible nowadays. Online international teaching not only enhances the varieties of teaching environments but also arouses learners to generate multiple thoughts through interacting with foreign instructors and classmates without living their own countries. However, online international teaching is a more complex educational environment, the cross-cultural differences and the characteristic of computer-mediated communication result that a single instructor would not be possible to handle all the matters in an online synchronous classroom. In the past, international instructors employed teaching assistants to reduce problems of cultural differences. This idea can be applied to online international teaching, a group of instructors can form a teaching team which includes different nations’ instructors, teaching assistants and technicians such that the problems caused by the cross-cultural communication and challenges of information technology can be reduced. Online international team teaching is a brand new teaching environment, there are few researches being done in this kind of teaching environment so far. Therefore, this study wants to explore the components and the important criteria for online international team teaching. The case we adopted for this study was an online international team teaching course called “Business English and Communication” offered by the MIS department of NSYSU. This research used participant observation and in depth interview to get primary data, and then use the phenomenology to analyze the secondary data which extracted from course discussion boards. The research findings are three main components and 17 criteria in total for online international team teaching. The three main components are “online international teaching”, “online collaboration by teaching team” and “interacting instruments”. “Online international teaching” includes 6 criteria offering guidelines for international teaching. “Online collaboration by teaching team” includes 5 criteria offering suggestions for international collaboration. And “interacting instruments” includes 3 criteria related to the interacting instruments of online international team teaching course. The last 3 criteria are for the common intersection of the three main components. We also proposed suitable suggestions from three different aspects, teaching aspect, material/ system aspect and learning aspect for researchers to do further study and for instructors to better teach online international team teaching courses.
論文提要 ii
致謝 iii
摘要 v
Abstract vi
目錄 viii
圖目錄 xii
表目錄 xiv
1 緒論 1
1.1 研究背景與動機 1
1.2 研究目的與問題 6
1.3 論文架構 7
2 文獻探討 8
2.1 協同教學 8
2.1.1 協同教學的定義 8
2.1.2 協同教學的優點與限制 9
2.1.3 教學團隊的選擇與組成 11
2.1.4 教學團隊的模式 12
2.2相關教學情境的準則 14
2.2.1 線上教學情境之準則 14
2.2.2 跨國教學情境之準則 16
2.2.3 線上協同教學情境之準則 18
3 研究方法 19
3.1 個案研究法 19
3.2 研究程序 22
3.2.1 教室觀察之參與觀察 23
3.2.2 深度訪談 25
3.2.3 次級資料分析 28
3.3 研究工具 29
3.3.1 研究者 29
3.3.2 錄影與錄音 30
3.3.3 觀察記錄表格 31
3.3.4 訪談大綱 32
3.3.5 訪談同意書 32
3.4 資料分析與編碼 35
3.4.1 現象學質性研究觀點 35
3.4.2 現象學內容分析法 36
3.5 三角驗證 48
4 個案描述 49
4.1 研究對象 49
4.1.1 教學團隊成員 49
4.1.2 學習者 51
4.2 課程簡介 53
4.2.1 實施流程與方式 53
4.2.2 班級經營方式 55
4.3 合作方式 66
4.3.1 教學團隊合作方式 66
4.3.2 學習者合作方式 67
4.4 教學法 69
4.4.1 溝通式語言教學法 69
4.4.2 討論教學法 70
4.5 教材 71
4.5.1 教材在非同步網路教室的配置 71
4.5.2 教學與測驗內容 76
4.6 網路教學平台簡介 84
4.6.1 非同步網路教室介紹 84
4.6.2 同步網路教室介紹 88
5 研究發現 92
5.1 線上跨國教學的準則 95
5.1.1 跨文化教學法的使用 95
5.1.2 足夠的自制力 97
5.1.3 積極的參與課程 98
5.1.4 文化議題的意涵 99
5.1.5 教材內容的彈性 100
5.1.6 評量公平性的注重 102
5.2 教學團隊跨國協同合作的準則 105
5.2.1 壓力的管理 105
5.2.2 共識的達成 106
5.2.3 資訊的透明性 107
5.2.4 連絡的即時性 108
5.2.5 文化敏感度的提升 109
5.3 互動工具的準則 112
5.3.1 課前的訓練 112
5.3.2 問卷系統的使用 114
5.3.3 網路教室多語言的支援 115
5.4 線上跨國教學與教學團隊協同合作的交集準則 117
5.4.1 分群教學的實施 117
5.4.2 分群輔導 118
5.5 教學團隊跨國協同合作與互動工具的交集準則 120
5.5.1互動工具的選擇 120
5.6 線上跨國教學和互動工具的交集準則 123
5.6.1 利用互動工具營造社群的感覺 123
6 綜合討論 124
6.1線上跨國教學 128
6.1.1 準則:跨文化教學法的使用 128
6.1.2準則:足夠的自制力 129
6.1.3準則:積極的參與課程 129
6.1.4 準則:文化議題的意涵 130
6.1.5 準則:教學內容的彈性 130
6.1.6 準則:注重評量公平性 130
6.2 教學團隊跨國協同合作 132
6.3 互動工具 134
6.3.1 準則:課前訓練 134
6.3.2 準則:網路教室多語言的支援 134
6.3.3 準則:問卷系統 135
6.4線上跨國教學和教學團隊跨國協同合作交集 136
6.4.1 準則:分群教學的實施 136
6.4.2 準則:分群輔導的實施 136
6.5互動工具和教學團隊跨國協同合作交集 137
6.6線上跨國教學和互動工具交集 138
6.6.1 準則:利用互動工具營造社群的感覺 138
7 結論 139
7.1 研究成果 139
7.1.2教學團隊跨國協同合作構面 141
7.1.3互動工具構面 142
7.1.4線上跨國教學與教學團隊跨國協同合作交集 142
7.1.5互動工具與教學團隊跨國協同合作交集 143
7.1.6 線上跨國教學與互動工具交集 143
7.2 研究貢獻 145
7.3 研究限制與未來研究方向 147
參考文獻 148
附錄1 助教訪談題目大綱 154
附錄2 教學者訪談題目大綱 156
附錄3 教學者訪談題目大綱(英語版) 158
附錄4 學習者訪談題目大綱 160
附錄5 學習者訪談題目大綱(英語版) 162
Banks, J. A. (2001). Diversity within unity: Essential principles for teaching and learning in a multicultural society. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Becker, H. S. (1977). Sociological work: Method and substance. Chicago: Aldine.
Belz, J. A. (2002). Social dimensions of telecollaborative foreign language study (1). Language Learning Technology, 6(1), 60-81.
Berge, Z. L. (1998). Guiding principles in web-based instructional design. Educational Media International, 35(2), 72-76.
Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university. Oxford: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
Bonk, C. J., & Sugar, W. A. (1998). Student role play in the world forum: Analyses of an arctic adventure learning apprenticeship. Interactive Learning Environments, 6(1-2), 114-142.
Bowman, N. R. (2003). Cultural differences of teaching and learning: A native American perspective of participating in educational systems and organizations. American Indian Quarterly, 27(1 & 2), 91-102.
Buckley, F. J. (2000). Team teaching: What, why, and how?. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (2001). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1, 1-47.
Chamberlain, S. P. (2005). Recognizing and responding to cultural differences in the education of culturally and linguistically diverse learners. Intervention in School and Clinic, 40(4), 195-211.
Chang, M. M. (2007). Enhancing web-based language learning through self-monitoring. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(3), 187-196.
Chang, M. M., & Lehman, J. D. (2002). Learning foreign language though an interactive multimedia program: An experimental study on the effects of the relevance component of the ARCS model. CALICO Journal 20, 81-98.
Chen, G. M. (1997). A review of the concept of intercultural sensitivity. The Howard Journal of Communications, 2, 243-261.
Chen, N. S., Ko, H. C., Kinshuk, & Lin, T. (2005). A model for synchronous learning using the internet. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 42(2), 181-194.
Cochenour, J. J. & Reynolds, C. (1998). Integrating computer technologies in distance learning as part of teacher preparation and inservice: Guidelines for success. Technology and Eacher Education Annual, 7(2), 136-140.
Cohen, M. S., & Ellis, T. J. (2004). Developing criteria for an on-line learning environment: From the student and faculty perspectives. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(2), 161-167.
Cole, M., & Engestrom, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Davies, I. K. (1981). Instructional technique. New York: Mcgraw-Hill.
Denzin, N. K. (1989). A theoretical introduction to sociological methods (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Dunn, A. H., & Baer, L. L. (2000). Creating the minnesota virtual university: Assessing results and readiness criteria. Educause Quarterly, 23(1), 16-23.
Earley, P. C., Ang, S., & Tan, J. S. (2006). Developing cultural intelligence at work. California: Stanford University Press.
Eggins, H. (2003). Globalization and reform in higher education. UK: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Gulley, H., E. (1968). Discussion, conference, and group process. New York: John Wiley.
Hawkes, M. (1996). Criteria for evaluating school-based distance education programs. NASSP Bulletin, 80(581), 45-52.
Hill, M. M. (2005). Teaching with culture in mind: cross-cultural learning in landscape architecture education. Landscape Journal, 24(2), 117-124.
Husserl, E. (1952). Ideas: General introduction to pure phenomenology. New York: Colliers.
Hycner, R. H. (1985). Some guidelines for the phenomenological analysis of interview data. Human Studies, 8(3), 279-303.
Hyman, J. M. (1970). A laboratory for learning parental involvement in the public school primary classroom. master, Claremont University, 1-41.
Johnstone, S. M., & Krauth, B. (1996). Balancing equity and access: Some principles of good practice for the virtual university. Change, 28(2), 38-41.
Kennedy, D., & Duffy, T. (2004). Collaboration--a key principle in distance education. Open Learning, 19(2), 203-211.
Khine, M. S., & Fisher, D. L. (2004). Teacher interaction in psychosocial learning environments: Cultural differences and their implications in science instruction. Research in Science Technological Education, 22(1), 99-111.
LaFauci, H. M., & Richter, P. E. (1970). Team teaching at the college level. New York: Pergamon Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lim, D. (2004). Cross cultural differences in online learning motivation. Educational Media International, 41(2), 163-175.
Lipst, S. M., Trow, M., & Coleman, J. (1956). Union democracy: the inside politics of the inetrnational typographical union. New York: Free Press.
Lorenzo, G., & Moore, J. (2002). The sloan consortium report to the nation: five pillars of quality online education. The Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.
Lum, D. (2004). Cultural competence, practice stages, and client systems: A case study approach. New York: Wadsworth Pub Co.
Martin, J. (1983). Mastering instruction. New York: Allyn and Bacon.
Martinez, R., Liu, S., Watson, W., & Bichelmeyer, B. (2006). Evaluation of a web-based master''s degree program: lessons learned from an online instructional design and technology program. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 7(3), 267-283.
McLoughlin, C. (2001). Inclusivity and alignment: Principles of pedagogy, task and assessment design for effective cross-cultural online learning. Distance Education, 22(1), 7-29.
Mestre, L. (2006). Accommodating diverse learning styles in an online environment. Reference User Services Quarterly, 46(2), 27-32.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. London: sage publication.
Minotti, J., & Giguere, P. (2003). The realities of web-based training. Technological Horizons in Education, 30(11), 41-46.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
Mitchell, A., & Honore , S. (2007). Criteria for successful blended learning. Industrial and Commercial Training, 39(3), 143-149.
Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (1995). Distance education: A systems view. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Newlin, M. H., & Wang, A. Y. (2002). Integrating technology and pedagogy: web instruction and seven principles of undergraduate education. Teaching of Psychology, 29(4), 325-330.
Niehoff, B. P., Turnley, W. H., Yen, H. J. R., & Sheu, C. (2001). Exploring cultural differences in classroom expectations of students from the united states and taiwan. Journal of Education for Business, 76(5), 289-293.
Niehoff, B. P., Turnley, W. H., Rebecca-Yen, H. J., & Sheu, C. (2001). Exploring cultural differences in classroom expectations of students from the united states and taiwan. Journal of Education for Business, 76(5), 289-293.
Patton, M. Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluation methods. United States: Sage Publications.
Rovai, A. P. (2007). Facilitating online discussions effectively. Internet & Higher Education, Jan2007(10), 77-88.
Sekaran, U. (2002). Research methods for business: A skill-building approach. New York: John Wiley and Sons Publications, Inc.
Selim, H. M. (2007). Critical success factors for e-learning acceptance: Confirmatory factor models. Computers Education, 49(2), 396-413.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. London: Sage Publication.
Stewart, D. W., & Kamins, M. A. (1993). Secondary research: Information sources and methods. New york: Sage Publications.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Sun, Y. C. (2003). Extensive reading online: An overview and evaluation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(4), 438-446.
Toporski, N. and T. Foley (2002). Design principles for online instruction: A new kind of classroom. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 5(1). Retrieved August 5, 2004, from http://tojde.anadolu.edu.tr/tojde13/articles/toporski.html.
Tucker, C. M., & Herman, K. C. (2002). Using culturally sensitive theories and research to meet the academic needs of low-income African-american children. The American Psychologist, 57(10), 762-773.
Volery, T., & Lord, D. (2000). Critical success factors in online education. The International Journal of Educational Management, 14(5), 216-223.
Volet, S. E., & Renshaw, P. D. (1995). Cross-cultural differences in university students'' goals and perceptions of study settings for achieving their own goals. Higher Education, 30(4), 407-443.
Webb, G. (1997). Deconstructing deep and surface: Towards a critique of phenomenography. Higher Education, 33(2), 195-212.
Wragg, E. C. (1999). An introduction to classroom observation. London: Routledge Falmer.
Yamazaki, Y., & Kayes, D. C. (2004). An experiential approach to cross-cultural learning: A review and integration of competencies for successful expatriate adaptation. Academy of Management Learning Education, 3(4), 362-379.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.
Zeidman, B. (2003). Guidelines for effective e-learning. Chief Learning Officer, 2, 24.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
無相關期刊
 
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔