政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/125600

政大典藏 > College of Liberal Arts > Graduate Institute of Library, Information and Archival Studies > Theses > Item 140.119/125600

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/125600

Title:	探究式學習融入高中英文寫作課程與英文寫作能力提升之行動研究 Action Study on Integrating Inquiry Learning into High School English Writing and Student’s Writing Ability Improvement
Authors:	吳姿瑩 Wu, Tzu-Ying
Contributors:	王梅玲 Wang, Mei-Ling 吳姿瑩 Wu, Tzu-Ying
Keywords:	探究式學習網路探究文學圈學習成效英文寫作 Inquiry Learning Webquest Literature Circle Learning Effectiveness English Writing
Date:	2019
Issue Date:	2019-09-05 15:59:36 (UTC+8)
Abstract:	在這全球化與國際化的世界，閱讀與寫作的表達能力變得相當重要，但是高中課程訓練時間不足以及成果導向式教學的緣故導致英文寫作的能力培養有所困難，讓高中生失去寫作的動力與興趣。故本研究透過Google新聞平台，發展探究式Google新聞閱讀融入高中英文寫作課程，進行網路探究教學活動，希望有助於學生在主題範圍內透過合作探究與閱讀文章分析討論，最終獲得主題相關知識與英文寫作四項能力，以達到提升學習者的寫作能力目的。本研究探討（1）探究式Google新聞閱讀融入高中英文寫作課程發展的意義與內涵、（2）課程發展之行動方案，包括課程與教學設計、課程實施，以及學生學習評鑑與課程評鑑等方案、（3）課程方案實施過程中面臨之問題及解決改進的方法、（4）課程方案實施歷程，以及對於學生英文寫作能力的影響。本研究採行動研究法，透過社群會議設計修改兩階段塑膠汙染以及快時尚為主題的寫作課程。研究對象為研究者任教之新北市樹林區某高中三年級兩班的學生，分為探究式學習班以及一般教學班，分別接受主題網路探究式Google新聞閱讀融入高中英文寫作教學與一般英文課程教學。在課程進行前後實施三次寫作測驗。透過三次測驗以了解透過網路探究式學習的寫作能力相較於一般課程教學學生學習成效是否顯著改善。此外，研究者透過與社群觀課紀錄以及社群會議紀錄，探究式學習班學生的課程回饋問卷、寫作成果與訪談內容分析探討課程實施遇到的問題與解決方案。研究結果顯示Google新聞平台資料庫支援寫作教學提供了實際的閱讀題材有助於高中生英文寫作能力之提升，學習成效顯著。因此本課程的教學模式與課程方案設計實際可行，具有意義與內涵；在課程規劃問題解決方案為：（1）增加閱讀與討論時間、（2）建議學生選擇篇幅較短的文章閱讀、（3）實行課程之前先進行翻譯基礎訓練再執行。學生學習問題解決方案為：（1）設計各自角色的學習單、（2）加入互相評鑑的機制、（3）先進行翻譯訓練、（4）加強增進合作學習的效益。教師教學問題解決方案為：（1）加強社群運作、（2）學習平台的更換、（3）借用狀況較佳的設備。針對本研究的結論，提出以下幾點建議：（1）進行網路探究式平台以及互動式學習平台的嘗試與選擇、（2）可設計不同的課程主題發展成一個學期或學年的課程、（3）擴大教師社群的規模，邀請更多老師研發課程、（4）增加實施行動研究的班級數量、（5）選擇適當的課程實施時間、（6）未來高中英文寫作課程發展宜先進行英文基礎訓練以及合作學習指導、（7）追蹤研究學生的主題意識行為。 In the world of globalization and internationalization, conveying becomes indispensable. However, lack of training in high school classes together with the result-oriented teaching method have made it difficult to develop students’ writing proficiency, and hence made them lose motive and interest in English writing. Therefore, the research aims to develop an approach of inquiry-based Google News reading into the high school English writing in the hope that this Webquest teaching activity might help students cooperate to read and analyze reading materials related to certain topics so as to make progress, including getting the background information and four English writing abilities. This study explores (1) the significance and connotation of the inquiry-based Google News reading into the high school English writing approach, (2) the action plan for curriculum development, (3) the problems and solutions for this curriculum, and (4) the process of this curriculum as well as the result of students` English writing ability. This study adopts the action study method, conducting a teacher’s Professional Learning Community (PLC) to design a two-stage plastic-pollution-themed and fast-fashion-themed writing activity. Subjects are two classes of senior high school third-graders in Shulin District, New Taipei City, one named inquiry-based class and the other regular-teaching class. The former receives the teaching of inquiry-based Google News reading into the high school English writing while the later regular textbook teaching. One pro-test and two post-tests will be conducted to see whether the implementation of this teaching approach affects and improves students’ writing abilities. In addition, the study will also include analyses of PLC observation records, meeting records, questionnaires, writing results and interviews. The results show that this approach of inquiry-based Google News reading into the high school English writing indeed helps high school students in writing, and thus this teaching approach and curriculum design are practical and meaningful. As for the process of this action study, the solutions to the problems in curriculum design are: (1) to increase time for reading and discussion, (2) to recommend students short articles, (3) to give student’s translation training first. The solutions to the problems in student learning are: (1) to design worksheets for each role, (2) to add mutual evaluation, (3) to train translation first, and (4) to enhance the effectiveness of cooperative learning. The solutions to the problems in teachers` teaching are: (1) to strengthen PLC operation, (2) to replace for another learning platform, and (3) to equip better devices. The findings suggest that we could first try other platforms for Webquest activities; second, we could incorporate various themes and topics to design a course for a semester or an academic year; third, we could enlarge PLC; four, we could include more classes into this action study, using selective classes; then, we could give translation training and concepts of cooperative learning before the practice; and finally we could track students’ awareness and behavior to the topics.
Reference:	大學入學考試中心（2016）。學科能力測驗英文考科考試說明—107學年度起適用—。財團法人大學入學考試中心。2018.08.10檢自： https://www.uac.edu.tw/ 方玉竹（2016）。英文範文仿傲寫作和過程導向教學法對台灣高中生英文寫作表現與焦慮之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺北教育大學，台北。王千倖（1997）。合作學習。師友，364，34-38。王文科（1995）。教育研究法。台北市：五南出版公司。王坦（2001）。合作學習—原理與策略。北京：學苑出版社。江淑卿、陳昱蓁、潘于君（2008）。幼稚園與二年級兒童速度概念之微觀發展研究。臺北市立教育大學學報，39（1），61-96。何琦瑜、吳毓珍（2007）。教出寫作力。天下雜誌，台北。吳敏而（2005）。套圈圈、洋蔥圈、閱讀圈—文學圈之理論與實務。台北：朗智。吳淑燕（2011）。電子教科書運用於國中英語WebQuest教學之行動研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺北教育大學，台北。吳錦釵（1990）。寫作歷程探討與其在教學上的意義。台灣省教育學術論文發表會，54，15-26。吳繼平（2002）。從學生偏好及教師實行兩方面來看高中英文寫作回饋使用之研究（未出版之博士論文）。國立高雄師範大學，高雄。李凱賢（ 2016）。歷程導向教學法對高中生英文寫作能力與動機之影響（未出版之博士論文）。南臺科技大學，台南。沈映珊（2011）。CSCL協作角色影響因素分析。中國電化教育，295，19-27。岳修平、鐘婉莉（2005）。專題式學習小組網路溝通互動之研究。教育學刊，25，1-23。林菁（2007）。資訊素養融入國小四年級社會學習領域教學：小小古蹟解說員的培訓研究。教育資料與圖書館學，44（3），357-378。林菁（2008）。資訊素養融入大學生主題探究之研究。教育資料與圖書館學，46：2，頁233-266 林菁（2010）。利用Big6問題解決模式教導大一學生資訊素養之研究。教學科技與媒體，91，頁37-63 林菁（2011）。資訊素養融入國小一年級「校園生物大搜索」主題探究：以Super3模式為例。教育資料與圖書館學，48：4，頁539-570 林菁（2012）。資訊素養融入國小二年級社會學習領域「我們的社區」主題探究：以Super3模式為例。教育資料與圖書館學，49：3，頁447-478 林菁、沈桂枝、賴秀珍（2016）。公民行動取向之資訊素養課程：以國小六年級「臺美生態學校夥伴計畫」為例。教育資料與圖書館學，53：2，頁211-244 林菁、洪美齡（2004）。資訊素養融入國小五年級社會學習領域—選賢與能主題為例。圖書館學與資訊科學，30（1），26-40。林菁、陳耀輝（2015）。應用爭議導向之探究式學習與資訊素養: 培養國小五年級學生議論能力。圖書資訊學研究，9：2，67-109。林菁、陳耀輝（2015）。應用爭議導向之探究式學習與資訊素養：培養國小五年級學生議論能力。圖書資訊學研究，9：2，67-109。林菁、謝欣穎、謝文峰（2014）。資訊素養融入國小三年級自然學習領域「樹朋友」主題探究。圖書資訊學研究，8：2，頁57-99 林寶山（民77）。教學原理。台北：五南。洪振方（2003）。探究式教學的歷史回顧與創造性探究模式之初探。高雄師大學報，15，頁 641-662。范蔚敏（2011）。基於學習社群角色行為特徵之網路合作式學習分組策略及其討論歷程評估研究。未出版碩士論文，國立政大學圖書資訊研究所，臺北市。徐美桂（2013）。WebQuest融入英語文化課程對不同學習風格學生的學習動機與成效之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。淡江大學，台北。國家教育研究院（2016）。十二年國教課綱。上網日期：2015，檢自國家教育研究院：https://www.naer.edu.tw/bin/home.php 張玉玲（2000）。聽說教學法。上網日期：2000年12月，檢自教育大辭書網：http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1315657/ 張清濱（2000）。探究教學法。師友，395，45-49。張靜儀（1995）。自然科探究教學法。屏師科學教育，1，36-45。張瀚中（2011）。在探究教學情境探討新移民子女科學文本閱讀理解與策略之個案研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立嘉義大學，嘉義。教育部（2003）。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要重大議題（資訊教育）。檢自https：//www.naer.edu.tw/files/15-1000-2983 教育部（2014）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱。檢自https：//www.naer.edu.tw/files/15-1000-7944，c6391.php 曹嘉秀（2006）。過程導向法及成品導向法對提升英文寫作能力之差別效益。師大學報：教育類，51（1），23-29。郭利霞（2013）。中國大陸對外漢語寫作教學研究的回顧與展望。臺灣華語教學研究，1期，總6期（2013/06 / 01），P.49 - 70. 陳伯璋（1988）。教育研究方法的新取向：質的研究方法。台北：南宏圖書。陳培真（2001a）。THE GRAMMAR-TRANSLATION METHOD 文法翻譯法（GTM）。上網日期：2001年3月，檢自高中英文科教學資源中心: http://163.28.10.78/content/senior/english/tp_tt/teachmethod/index.htm 陳培真（2001b）。COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING 溝通式教學法（CLT; or NOTIONAL-FUNCTIONAL APPROACH）。上網日期：2001年1月，檢自高中英文科教學資源中心： http://163.28.10.78/content/senior/english/tp_tt/teachmethod/index.htm 陳經洲（2014）。運用文學小圈圈在大學閱讀和寫作課程之成效研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立屏東教育大學，屏東。陸希平、王本榮、陳家玉（2006）。問題導向學習。醫學教育，10（2），89-97。黃台珠等譯（2002）。Joel J. Mintzes等著。促進理解之科學教學—人本建構取向觀點。台北市：心理出版社。黃永和（2013）。進修教師在問題引導學習取向課程中的學習經驗。師資培育與教師專業發展期刊，6（2），91-116。黃政傑、吳俊憲（2006）。合作學習：發展與實踐。臺北市：五南圖書. 黃韻潔（2008）。WebQuest應用在國小英語專題課程之行動研究（未出版之碩士論文）。淡江大學，台北。楊和學、石豫臺（2014）。融合5E 探究式教學法的高中職奈米科技專題實驗教材設計--以「奈米二氧化鈦光觸媒」為例。物理教育學刊 14：2 2014.01[民103.01] 頁113-125 楊建民（2010）。探究式教學法與講述式教學法在國小Scratch程式教學學習成效之研究（未出版之博士論文）。國立屏東教育大學，屏東。楊凱翔（2012）。探究WebQuest教學模式的發展與未來方向。國民教育 52：3，頁80-88 楊懿麗（2003）。高中英文寫作教學之我見-從大學入學考試英作測驗談起。人文及社會學科教學通訊，14（1），92-113。劉宏文和張惠博（2001）。高中學生進行開放式探究活動之個案研究 − 問題的形成與解決。科學教育學刊，9（2），169-196。劉季清（2017）。睽違 6 年終於更新！Google News 大改版加入 6 大好用功能！上網日期：2017.6.28，檢自自由時報：https://3c.ltn.com.tw/news/30774 劉郁芬（2002）。台灣高中生經由英文小說閱讀之字彙出現頻率對字彙習得之影響（未出版碩士論文）。國立高雄師範大學英語學系，高雄。歐用生（1996）。教師專業成長。台北：師大師苑。蔡清田（1997）。以行動研究為依據的教師在職進修與專業成長。八十六學年度教育學術研討會論文輯。花蓮市：花蓮師範學院。蔡瀞慧（2008）。WebQuest教學策略融入高中英文教學之行動研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立台灣體育大學，桃園。鄭羽傑（2014）。網路探究方案中台灣中部非英語系大學生英文讀寫表現、多元文化覺察及多元媒體素養之效益研究（未出版之博士論文）。國立高雄師範大學，高雄。鄭詩穎（2013）。WebQuest教學模式。取自：http://web.cjjh.tc.edu.tw/~sciedu95/materials/webquest/webquest.htm。蕭伊珊（2014）。蕭伊珊 WebQuest對英語學習者閱讀及批判性思考發展研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，台北。謝淑熙（2016）。學校圖書館與探究式教學。澳門圖書館暨資訊管理協會學刊，16，31-38。蘇霈倫（2012）。應用網路探究學習策略於國中英文寫作課程的學習成效與態度之行動研究（未出版之碩士論文）。淡江大學，台北。 AASL (2007). Information literacy competency standards for higher education. Chicago, Illinois: ACRL. Retrieved from https://alair.ala.org/handle/11213/7668 AASL&AECT (1998). Information literacy standards for student learning: standards and indicators. ALA. Retrieved from http://www.ilipg.org/sites/ilipg.org/files/bo/InformationLiteracyStandards_final.pdf Alake-Tuenter, Biemans, Tobi, & Mulder (2013). Inquiry-based science teaching competence of primary school teachers: A Delphi study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 35. p.13-24 American Association of School Librarians (AASL), & Association for Educational Communication and Technology (AECT) (1998). Information power: Building partnerships for learning. Chicago. IL: American Library Association. American Association of School Librarians. (2007). Standards for the 21st-century learning: Standards and indicators. Chicago, IL: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/aasl/sites/ala.org.aasl/files/content/guidelinesandstandards/learningstandards/AASL_Learning_Standards_2007.pdf Benne, K. D., & Sheats, P. (1948). Functional Roles of Group Members. A Journal of the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, 4(2), 41-49. Berghoff, B., Egawa, K. A., Harste, J., & Hoonan, B. T. (2000). Beyond reading and writing: Inquiry, curriculum, and multiple ways of knowing. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, Urbana, IL: Kenyon Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education. Byrne, B. M. (1998). Multivariate applications book series. Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Chang, C. (2000). The effect of error correction on grammatical structures. In Tzyh-lai Huang (Chair), 2000: Changes and Challenges in ELT Symposium conducted at the 9th International Symposium on English Teaching, Taipei. Chen, D. W. (2001). The identity crisis of EFL composition instruction in Taiwan. Paper presented at the 18th Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, Taipei. Chu, S., Tse, S. K., Loh, E. K. Y., Chow, K., Fung, H. F., & Ng, H. W. R. (2008). Primary four students’ development of reading ability through inquiry-based learning projects. International Association of School Librarianship. Selected Papers from the Annual Conference, 1-15, 17-18. Cohen, L. and Manion, L. (1989). Research Methods in Education. 3rd edn. London: Routledge. Connor, U. 1996. Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-cultural Aspects of Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Davis, D., Bagozzi, P. & Warshaw, R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982-1003. DeKeyser, R. (1994). Teaching and research: Options in grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 39-60. Dodge, B. (2002). Matrix of Examples [Internet]. Retrieved March 23, 2002, from the World Wide Web: http://webquest.sdsu.edu/matrix.html Doyle, C. S. (1992). Outcome measures for information literacy within the national education goals of 1990. Final report to national forum on information literacy. Summary of findings. Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearing house on Information and Technology. (ERIC No. ED 351 033). Elbow, P. (1973). Writing without Teachers, pp. 12–75. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Faigley, L. (1986). Teaching and research: Options in grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 39-60. Fitgerald, M. A. (1999). Evaluating Information: An Information Literacy Challenge. School library media research, 2. Galvin. K. (1997), Cooperative and collaborative learning workshop. Retrieved from http://www.apa.udel.edu/apa/archive/news-letters/v96n2/teaching/cooperate.asp. Gibson, H. L., & Chase, C. (2002). Longitudinal impact of an inquiry‐based science program on middle school students` attitudes toward science. Science Education, 86 (5), 693-705 Halat, E. (2008). A good teaching technique: Webquests, The Clearing House, 81(3), 109- 111. Hill, Bonnie Campbell, Nancy Johnson, and Katherine Schlick Noe (1995). Literature Circles and Response. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. J., & Hulubec, E. J. (1990). Circles of Learning: Cooperation in the classroom. Edina Minnesota: Interaction Book Company. Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R.T. (1994) Learning together and alone (4th ed.), Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16: 1-20. Kuhlthau, C. C., Maniotes, L. K., & Caspari, A. K. (2012). Guided inquiry design: A framework for inquiry in your school. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited. Kuhlthau, C. C., Maniotes, L. K., & Caspari, A. K. (2015). Guided inquiry: Learning in the 21st century. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited. Lotts, M. (2016). Playing with LEGO®, Learning about the Library, and “Making” Campus Cnnections: The Rutgers University Art Library Lego Playing Station, Part One. Journal of Library Administration, 56(4), 359-380. Marzano, R. J. (1992). A different kind of learning: Teaching with dimensions of learning. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development. Murry, D. M. (1978). Internal revision: A process of discovery. In R. Cooper, & L. Odell (Eds.), Research on composing: Points of departure (p.85-103). Urbana, IL: National Council for Teacher Education. Nagy, W.E. and Anderson, R.C. (1984). How Many Words Are There in Printed School English. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 304-330. Raimes, A. (1986). Teaching ESL writing: fitting what we do to what we know. The writing instructor, 5 (4), 153-166 Richmond, G. & Striley, J. (1996). Making meaning in classroom: Social processes in small group discourse and scientific knowledge build building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(8), 839-858. Schofield, JW. (1995). Computers and Classroom Culture. New York: Cambridge University Press. Don Shiach. (2007). How to write essays a step-by-step guide for all levels, with sample essays. Oxford. Siegel, S., & Castellan, N. J. Jr. (1988). Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill. Silvia, T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27(4), 657-677. Slavin, R.E. (1995). Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice. (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon. Strijbos. J. W., & Martens, R. L. (2001), Group-based learning: Dynamic interaction in groups. Retrieved from http://www.mmi.unimaas.nl/euro-cscl/Papers/ 154.doc.. Summey, T. P., & Valenti, S. (2013). But We Don’t Have an Instructional Designer: designing Online Library Instruction Using ISD Techniques. Journal of Library & Information Services in Distance Learning, 7(2), 169-182. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in Output and the Cognitive Processes They Generate: A Step towards Second Language Learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371-391. Tribble, Christopher (1996). Writing. Oxford: OUP. pp 172. Varank, I. (2005). Effectiveness of computers in the classroom and teachers’ training needs for successful integration of computers in education. Abant Izzet Baysal University Journal of Faculty of Education, 5(2), 79-91. White, R., & Gunstone, R. F. (1992). Prediction-observation-explanation. In R. White & R. F. Gunstone, Probing Understanding (pp. 44-64). London: The Falmer Press. William Moulton Marston (2007). Emotions of normal people. Andesite Press. Zamel, V. (1982). The composing processes of advanced ESL students: six case studies. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 165-87. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3586647
Description:	碩士國立政治大學圖書資訊與檔案學研究所 104155009
Source URI:	http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0104155009
Data Type:	thesis
DOI:	10.6814/NCCU201900695
Appears in Collections:	[Graduate Institute of Library, Information and Archival Studies] Theses

Files in This Item:

File	Size	Format
500901.pdf	4568Kb	Adobe PDF2	187	View/Open

社群 sharing

Loading...