(100.26.179.251) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/04/14 08:03
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:謝賢頴
研究生(外文):Hsien-Ying Hsieh
論文名稱:課室小組討論活動的口語參與-以六名大學師資生為例
論文名稱(外文):Understanding Oral Participation in Group Discussions: The Case of Six Pre-Service Teachers in a Teacher Education Course
指導教授:詹明峰詹明峰引用關係
指導教授(外文):MING-FONG JAN
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立中央大學
系所名稱:學習與教學研究所
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:2019
畢業學年度:107
語文別:中文
論文頁數:150
中文關鍵詞:課室言談小組討論同儕討論討論活動設計
外文關鍵詞:group discussionoral participationpeer discussiondiscussion design
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:47
  • 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:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
本研究探討在台灣的大學師資培育中心學生(以下簡稱師資生)於課室小組討論活動時的參與,並了解師資生在參與課室討論活動後,對課室討論活動的看法與變化,以及其學期初與學期末將討論活動應用在教案設計的調整。研究目的有三:一、了解師資生於課室小組討論於小組內口語言談參與的樣貌、角色的扮演與整個學期的參與變化;二、探討師資生於課室小組討論時有口語參與與沒有口語參與的原因;三、師資生在參與課室小組討論前後如何對小組討論活動的看法,並在參與「教學原理」課程後,對學期初個人教案設計中的討論活動有何調整與變化。對照三個研究問題:一、組成一固定小組的六名師資生,在「教學原理」課程的小組討論活動中如何參與討論?二、影響六名小組成員在小組討論中參與對話的因素為何?三、六名師資生在參與「教學原理」的小組討論與相關反思活動後,對於小組討論的觀點產生何種變化?原因為何?
研究者採用質性個案研究法進行探究,使用「立意取樣」選取國立大學師培中心教學原理課程中的其中一組六位來自英文系大學部三年級的女學生討論小組,作為主要研究參與者,研究者對六名學生進行深度的個人、團體訪談,並將訪談資料轉為逐字稿,另外,從六位小組成員於期初期末設計的個人教案設計與心得報告中蒐集相關研究資料,進行資料的整理、編碼和分析。
研究結果顯示:一、課室內小組討論活動進行時,通常會有專屬於小組內的口語互動輪廓;二、影響大學師資生於課室內小組討論口語參與因素,包含個人特質、與組員的熟識度、討論活動時的安全感、課程進行時學習者的精神狀態、討論主題的魅力、課室言談氛圍的營造;三、本次課程中小組討論的頻率與時間相較過去經驗來的高且長,討論中並非只是將教學者想聽到的回答出來,而是需要從不同角度深度思考和討論觀點;討論小組成員在討論活動的初期,對於要如何討論、要討論什麼並不是很明白,在一次次討論活動循環中,參考教學者的討論規則和方式,組員間更加熟識,讓討論活動越來越熱絡,不過小組內說話的人變多,有的組員反倒從較多的口語參與轉變為較少的口語參與。此外,組員也發現越到期末,組內相互討論語氣、用詞越來越直白,更能針對主題提出想法,不再如期初時需要刻意修飾和委婉,讓觀點的傳達更直接快速。在後續的教案設計中,小組成員也對於期初時自己設計的教案裡的討論活動進行調整與修改。
最後,根據本研究的結果和發現,對於第一線教學者、學習者、對課室言談討論議題有興趣的人,提出一些建議,作為教學時或研究的參考。
This qualitative case study investigates six pre-service teachers’ oral participation in group discussions in a teacher education course. In particular, we aim to understand (1) the ways these pre-service teachers participate in small group discussions, (2) the factors that enable and disable their participation in small group discussions, and (3) how their participation in the course changes the ways they perceive and design discussion activities in their lesson plan design assignments.

The researcher employs a qualitative case study approach to understand the above inquiry questions. Participants are six female pre-service teachers. All of them are university junior students from the English department. Data include field notes from observing their group discussions during the 18-week “Principles of Instruction” course, individual interviews, semi-structural interviews, focused group discussions, and assignments. Data is analyzed with an open-coding approach to capture emerging themes and meanings.

We conclude with the following research results. First, there is a regular pattern or form through which these participants talk. Second, these students’ oral participation is decided and defined by multiple inter-related factors such as participants' individual characteristics and readiness to discuss, personal interests in the issues for discussion, familiarity with group members, sense of safety and familiarity with the discussed topics arising from the overall design of discussion activities. Third, students’ participation in the group discussions are generally longer, deeper, and more frequent than their experiences in other courses. These discussions also demand them to take on different roles and perspectives. During the course of the entire semester, group members became more straight forward and the discussions became more efficient and relevant.
中文摘要 i
Abstract iii
誌謝 v
一、緒論 1
1-1.課室口語言談的過去與現在 1
1-2.研究動機 2
1-3.研究機會 3
2-1.何謂「課室言談討論」? 5
2-2.課室言談討論的重要性 7
2-3.同儕課室言談與學習的關係 8
2-4.教學者如何看待課室討論的影響 10
2-5.課室言談討論的分類 11
2-6.常見課室言談討論模式 14
2-7.讓真正的討論出現的元素 16
2-8.觀看課室討論的鏡頭 18
2-9.實踐課室討論活動的注意事項 22
三、研究方法 30
3-1.研究問題 30
3-2.研究方法 31
3-3.研究現場與情境 31
3-4.研究時間與對象 37
3-5.研究參與者 38
3-6.資料收集 45
3-7.資料分析方法 49
3-8.研究限制 51
3-9.研究貢獻 52
3-10.質性研究信效度 53
四、研究結果 55
4-1.小組成員參與討論的樣貌 55
4-2.影響小組成員於小組討論中參與對話的因素-小組討論時,說與不說的原因 65
4-3.師資生在參與「教學原理」的小組討論後的反思 87
4-4.期初到期末,小組討論口語參與變化與原因 93
4-5.課室討論活動於教案應用的變化 98
五、討論與建議 103
5-1.課室小組討論活動-說與不說的原因 103
5-2「學討論」的實踐策略 113
5-3.課程結束後 116
5-4.未來研究建議 123
六、研究如何改變我的課室觀 124
6-1.我課室中的小組討論 124
6-2.研究田野的課程參與與觀察 125
6-3.研究帶給自己課室的影響與變化 127
參考文獻 130
附錄一 134
附錄二 135
附錄三 136
〔1〕蔡敏玲(2001)。尋找教室團體互動的節奏與變奏-教育質性研究歷程的展現。臺北市:桂冠。
〔2〕蔡敏玲、彭海燕(譯)(1998)。教室言談:教與學的語言(原作者:Courtney B.Cazden)。臺北市:心理。(原著出版年:1988)
〔3〕谷瑞勉(譯)(2004)。鮮活地討論!培養專注的閱讀(原作者:Gambrell Linda B.&Almasi Janice F.)。臺北市:心理。(原著出版年:1996)
〔4〕胡幼慧、姚美華(1996)。一些質性方法上的思考:信度與效度?如何抽樣?如何搜集資料、登錄與分析?刊於胡幼慧主編:質性研究:理論、方法及本土女性研究實例,141-158。台北:巨流出版社。
〔5〕潘淑滿(2003)。質性研究理論與應用。台北市:心理。
〔6〕徐宗國(1997)。質性研究概論。台北市:巨流。
〔7〕Abdullah, M. Y., Bakar, N. R. A., & Mahbob, M. H. (2012). Student's Participation in Classroom: What Motivates them to Speak up?. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 51, 516-522.
〔8〕Almasi, J. F. (1995). The nature of fourth graders' sociocognitive conflicts in peer-led and teacher-led discussions of literature. Reading Research Quarterly, 314-351.
〔9〕Almasi, J. F., & McKeown, M. G. (1996). The nature of engaged reading in classroom discussions of literature. Journal of Literacy Research, 28(1), 107-146.
〔10〕Auster, C. J., & MacRone, M. (1994). The classroom as a negotiated social setting: An empirical study of the effects of faculty members' behavior on students' participation. Teaching Sociology, 289-300.
〔11〕Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
〔12〕Cazden, C.B. & Beck, S.W. (2003). Classroom discourse (A C.Graesser, M.A.Gernsbacher, & S.R. Goldman, Eds.). In Handbook of Discourse Processes (pp. 165-167). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
〔13〕Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3-21.
〔14〕Dillon, J. T. (1984). Research on questioning and discussion. Educational Leadership, 42(3), 50-56.
〔15〕Ellner, C. L. (1983). Piercing the college veil. Studies of College Teaching, 183-193.
〔16〕Fassinger, P. A. (1995). Understanding classroom interaction: Students' and professors' contributions to students' silence. The Journal of Higher Education, 66(1), 82-96.
〔17〕Foster, L. N., Krohn, K. R., McCleary, D. F., Aspiranti, K. B., Nalls, M. L., Quillivan, C. C. & Williams, R. L. (2009). Increasing low-responding students’ participation in class discussion. Journal of Behavioral Education, 18(2), 173.
〔18〕Hicks, D. (1995/1996). Discourse, Learning, and Teaching. In M.W. Apple (Ed.), Review of Research in Education (Vol. 21, pp. 49–95). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association
〔19〕Howard, J. R., & Baird, R. (2000). The consolidation of responsibility and students' definitions of situation in the mixed-age college classroom. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(6), 700-721.
〔20〕Howard, J. R., & Henney, A. L. (1998). Student participation and instructor gender in the mixed-age college classroom. The Journal of Higher Education, 69(4), 384-405.
〔21〕Howard, J. R., James III, G. H., & Taylor, D. R. (2002). The consolidation of responsibility in the mixed-age college classroom. Teaching Sociology, 214-234.
〔22〕Howard, J. R., Short, L. B., & Clark, S. M. (1996). Students' participation in the mixed-age college classroom. Teaching Sociology, 8-24.
〔23〕Howard, J. R., & Henney, A. L. (1998). Student participation and instructor gender in the mixed-age college classroom. The Journal of Higher Education, 69(4), 384-405.
〔24〕Larson, B. E. (2000). Classroom discussion: A method of instruction and a curriculum outcome. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(5-6), 661-677.
〔25〕Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, N.J: Ablex Pub. Corp.
〔26〕Mercer, N., & Wegerif, R. (1999). Is “exploratory talk” productive talk. Learning with computers: Analyzing productive interaction, 79-101.
〔27〕Michaels, S., & O’Connor, C. (2015). Conceptualizing talk moves as tools: Professional development approaches for academically productive discussion. Socializing intelligence through talk and dialogue, 347-362.
〔28〕Nunn, C. E. (1996). Discussion in the college classroom: Triangulating observational and survey results. The Journal of Higher Education, 67(3), 243-266.
〔29〕O'Connor, C., & Michaels, S. (2007). When is dialogue “dialogic”? .Human Development, 50(5), 275.
〔30〕Rocca, K. A. (2010). Student participation in the college classroom: An extended multidisciplinary literature review. Communication Education, 59(2), 185-213.
〔31〕Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., Adams, W. K., Wieman, C., Knight, J. K., Guild, N., & Su, T. T. (2009). Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions. Science, 323(5910), 122-124.
〔32〕Souza, T. J., Dallimore, E. J., Aoki, E., & Pilling, B. C. (2010). Communication Climate, Comfort and Cold Calling: An analysis of discsuuion-based courses at multiple universities. To Improve the Academy, 28(1), 227-249.
〔33〕Wade, R. C. (1994). Teacher education students' views on class discussion: Implications for fostering critical reflection. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10(2), 231-243.
〔34〕Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring Classroom Discourse: Language in Action. London: Routledge.
〔35〕Weaver, R. R., & Qi, J. (2005). Classroom organization and participation: College students' perceptions. The Journal of Higher Education, 76(5), 570-601.
電子全文 電子全文(網際網路公開日期:20210626)
連結至畢業學校之論文網頁點我開啟連結
註: 此連結為研究生畢業學校所提供,不一定有電子全文可供下載,若連結有誤,請點選上方之〝勘誤回報〞功能,我們會盡快修正,謝謝!
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
無相關論文
 
無相關期刊
 
無相關點閱論文
 
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔