政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/33439
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  全文笔数/总笔数 : 113656/144643 (79%)
造访人次 : 51695780      在线人数 : 616
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
搜寻范围 查询小技巧：
  • 您可在西文检索词汇前后加上"双引号"，以获取较精准的检索结果
  • 若欲以作者姓名搜寻，建议至进阶搜寻限定作者字段，可获得较完整数据
    •  进阶搜寻


    请使用永久网址来引用或连结此文件: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/33439


    题名: 國中師生認知風格與學生英語學習表現之相關研究
    The Relationship between Student-Teacher Cognitive Styles and Students` English Performance in Junior High School
    作者: 廖惠君
    Hui-chun,Liao
    贡献者: 林啓一
    Chi-yee,Lin
    廖惠君
    Hui-chun,Liao
    关键词: 場地獨立
    場地依賴
    全民英檢
    聽
    讀
    寫
    國中師生
    field independence
    field dependence
    GEPT
    listening
    reading
    writing
    junior high school
    student-teacher
    日期: 2006
    上传时间: 2009-09-17 16:36:04 (UTC+8)
    摘要: 本研究旨在討論台灣國中師生認知風格與學生英文學習表現的關係。此研究目的是要探討(1)不同認知風格的學生在英文學習表現上是否有顯著性的相關，(2)不同認知風格的老師在教學成效方面是否有顯著性的相關，(3)師生認知風格相符合的學生群和不相符合的學生群在英文學習表現方面是否有顯著性的相關。
    研究樣本以新竹一所國中242位學生及4位老師為研究對象。藏圖測驗用來區分研究對象之認知風格是否為場地獨立型或場地依賴型之學習者。此242位學生皆參與全民英檢之聽、讀、寫測驗;此外，研究者亦對師生進行個別訪談以獲得更進一步的解釋。
    本研究採描述統計及Pearson積差相關進行資料分析。研究結果顯示(1)場地獨立型學生在聽、讀、寫的學習表現上較場地依賴型學生佳，並有顯著性相關；(2)場地獨立型老師所教的學生在聽、讀、寫的學習表現上雖較場地依賴型老師所教的學生佳，卻無顯著性相關；然而當男女學生分開進行檢測時，場地獨立型老師所教的女學生在聽力的學習表現方面較場地依賴型老師所教的女學生佳，並有顯著性相關；(3)師生認知風格不相符合的學生群在聽、讀、寫的學習表現上雖較師生認知風格相符合的學生群佳，卻無顯著性相關；而當進行更進一步的數據檢測時，師生場地依賴型風格不相符合的學生群在聽力及寫作的學習表現方面較師生場地依賴型風格相符合的學生群佳，並有顯著性相關；此外，其老師為場地依賴型的場地獨立型學生在閱讀的學習表現上較師生場地依頼型風格相符合的學生群佳，並有顯著性相關。訪談的結果發現，師生場地獨立型風格相符合的學生群能受惠於教師的教學，而師生場地依賴型風格相符合的學生群能夠在與教師的人際互動中受益。
    最後，研究者根據研究發現提出數點建議。首先，對於師生認知風格的確認在教學上有其必要性。其次，教師的教學應力求多樣化，並且對於不同認知風格的學生能施予不同的教學法。再者，師資培育者應提供相關的教學訓練，幫助英語教師在教學上能依據學生不同的認知風格予以不同的教法。最後，本研究建議未來能有更多的研究探討場地獨立型或場地依賴型的師生在英語教學或學習中所扮演的角色，並提供更多更有建設性的貢獻。
    The present study aimed to investigate the relationship between student-teacher field-independence-dependence cognitive styles and students’ English performance in a Taiwanese junior high school. The purpose of this study was to explore: (a) different language tasks achieved successfully by students with different cognitive styles, (b) the teaching effectiveness of teachers with different cognitive styles, and (c) language performance under matching cognitive styles between students and teachers.
    Two hundred forty-two student participants and four teacher participants from a junior high school in Hsin-chu city were chosen in this study. The Hidden Figures Test (HFT) was conducted to measure the participants’ cognitive styles to be field independence (FI) or field dependence (FD). These 242 students took the General English Proficiency Tests (GEPT) with regard to listening, reading and writing. Interview was also given to both the student and teacher participants.
    The collected data were analyzed by descriptive statistics and Pearson product-moment correlations. The results show: (a) FI students performed better than FD students in the listening, reading and writing test, and there was a significant correlation between FI students and students’ English performance in the listening, reading and writing test; (b) students with FI teachers outperformed students with FD teachers in the listening, reading and writing test, but there was no significant correlation between teachers’ cognitive styles and students’ performance in the listening, reading and writing test; but when the data were re-tested between female groups and male groups, female students with FI teachers were found to perform better than those with FD teachers in the listening test, and there was a significant correlation between female with FI teachers and students’ performance in the listening test; (c) student-teacher FI/FD mismatch groups performed better than student-teacher FI/FD match groups in the listening, reading and writing test, but there was no significant correlation between student-teacher FI/FD mismatch groups and students English performance in the listening, reading and writing test; however, the further examination indicated that FD mismatch groups performed better than FD match groups in the listening and writing test, and there was a significant correlation between FD mismatch groups and students’ performance in the listening and writing test; and the further examination also revealed that FI students with FD teachers outperformed FD students with FD teachers in the reading test, and there was a significant correlation between FI students with FD teachers and students’ English performance in the reading test. The result of the interview revealed that FI match groups benefited from the teacher instruction while FD match groups benefited from the interpersonal aspect of the teachers.
    Pedagogically, the findings of the study suggested the necessity of the awareness of students’ and teachers’ cognitive styles; in addition, teachers were suggested to be cognitive-flexible, and teacher education programs were also advised to offer related language training to assist teachers in achieving cognitive flexibility. Further research should be conducted to understand to what extent field independence/dependence plays a role in how students learn and how teachers teach, hence providing more constructive insights for English language education.
    參考文獻: References
    Abraham, R. (1981). The Relationship of Cognitive Style to the Use of Grammatical Rules by Spanish-speaking ESL Students in Editing Written English. Unpublished dissertation, University of Illinois, Illinois.
    Abraham, R. (1985). Field independence-dependence and the teaching of grammar. TESOL Quarterly, 20(4), p.689-701.
    Bialystok, E., & Frohlich, M. (1977). Aspects of second language learning in classroom settings. Working Papers on Bilingualism, No. 13. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
    Bialystok, E., & Frohlich, M. (1978).Variables of classroom achievement in second language learning. Modern Language Journal, 62, p. 327-336.
    Boersma, F. (1968). Test-retest reliability of the cf-1 Hidden Figure Test. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 28, p.555-559.
    Brown, H. D. (1978).The good language teacher: coping with the effect of affect. CATESOL Occasional Papers, No.4 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 166 953)
    Brown, H. D. (1987). Principles of language learning and teaching (3rd.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
    Carter, E. (1988). The relationship of field dependent/independent cognitive style to Spanish language achievement and proficiency: A preliminary report. The Modern Language Journal, 72, p.21-30.
    Chapelle, C., & Green, P. (1992). Field independence/dependence in second-language acquisition research. Language Learning, 42(1), p.47-83.
    Chapelle, C., & Roberts, C. (1986). Ambiguity tolerance and field independence as predictors of proficiency in English as a second language. Language Learning, 36(1), p.29-45.
    Saracho, O. N., & Spodek, B. (1994). Matching preschool children’s and teachers’ cognitive styles. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 78, p.683-689.
    Sarasin, L.C. (1999). Learning style perspective: Impact in the classroom. Madison WI: Atwood Publishing.
    Seliger, H. (1977). Does practice make perfect?: A study of interaction patterns and L2 competence. Language Learning, 27, p.263-278.
    Shapiro, N. (1970). The effects of perceptual isolation on recall for field-dependent and field-independent subjects. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. New York University.
    Stansfield, C., & Hansen, J. (1983). Field dependence-independence as a variable in second language cloze test performance. TESOL Quarterly, 17(1), p.29-38.
    Stasz, C., Shavelson, R. J., Cox, D.L., & Moore, C. A. (1976). Field independence and the structuring of knowledge in a social studies minicourse. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, p.550-558.
    Stern, H. (1975). What can we learn from the good language learner? Canadian Modern Language Review, 31, p.304-318.
    Summerville, J. (1999). Role of awareness of cognitive style in hypermedia. Retrieved February 17, 2007, from http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/IJET/v1n1/summerville/
    Swyter, L. J., & Michael, W. B. (1982). The interrelationships of four measures, hypothesized to represent the field dependence-field independence construct. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 42, (3), p.877–888.
    Sy, B. (1991). Student learning style preferences in the EFL classroom. Proceedings: Applied English instruction and management colloquium. Taipei: Ming Chuan College.
    Chen, H. J. (陳慧菁). (1991).場地獨立性與英語聽力的相關研究. Unpublished master’s thesis. National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
    Tsao, Tai-ling. (2002). Perceptual learning style preference and learning strategy use among Taiwanese senior high school EFL learners. Unpublished master’s thesis. Graduate Institute of English National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.
    Tucker, G., Hamayan, E., & Genesee, F. (1976). Affective, cognitive and social factors in second language acquisition. Canadian Modern Language Review, 32, p.214-226.
    Tuner, N. D. (1993). Learning styles and metacognition. Reading Improvement, 30(2), p.82-85.
    Tyler, L. (1978). Individuality: Human possibilities and personal choice in the psychological development of men and women. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
    Wang, H.C. (2005). An exploration of Teaching beliefs, instructional preferences, and learning preferences. Selected Papers from Proceedings of the 22nd Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China. (p.299-317) Taipei: Crane.
    Williamson, M., & Watson, R. (2006). Learning styles research: Understanding how teaching should be impacted by the way learners learn. Christian Education Journal, 3(1), p.27-42.
    Witkin, H. (1976). Cognitive style in academic performance and in teacher-student relations. In S. Messick (Ed.), Individuality in learning: Implications of cognitive style and creativity for human development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
    Witkin, H., Dyk, R., Faterson, H., Goodenough D., & Karp, S. (1962).Psychological differentiation. Potomac, Md.: Erlbaum.
    Witkin, H., & Goodenough, D. (1981). Cognitive styles: Essence and origins. Field dependence and field independence. New York: International Universities Press.
    Witkin, H., Goodenough, D., & Oltman, P. (1979). Psychological differentiation: current status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, p.1127-1145.
    Chin, J., & Wu, J. (2000). STEP and GEPT-A comparison of the listening components of two tests. In the Third International Conference on English Language in Asia Hong Kong Examination Authority.
    Witkin, H., Moore, C., Goodenough, D., & Cox, P. (1977). Field-dependence and field-independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of Educational Research, 47, p.1-64.
    Wiltkin, H., Lewis, H., & Weil, E. (1968). Affective interactions and patient-therapist interactions among more differentiated and less differentiated patients early in therapy. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 146, p.193-208.
    Witkin, H., Oltman, P., Raskin, E., & Karp, S., (1971). A manual for the embedded figures tests. Palo Alto, Calif.: Consulting Psychologist Press.
    Witkin, H., Oltman, P., Raskin, E., & Karp, S., (2002). Group embedded figures test manual. Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden, Inc.
    Wu, J. J.(1968). Cognitive Style and task performance—A study of student teachers. (Doctoral dissertation. University of Minnesota, 1967). (University Microfilms No. 68-7408) Dissertation Abstracts, 1968, 29, 176A.
    Wu, J. J. (吳靜吉). (1974). 藏圖測驗. 台北:遠流出版社.
    Wu, Y. Y. (吳裕益). (1987). 認知能力與認知型態個別差異現象之探討. 教育學刋, 7,
    p. 51-98.
    Zhu, W. Z. (朱武智). (2003, 9月24日). 國中英語成績雙峰現象：教育部部尋求補助.
    中國時報.
    Chin, J., & Wu, J. (2001). STEP and GEPT: A concurrent study OF Taiwanese EFL learners performance on two tests. In the Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on English Language Testing in Asian. Taipei: LTTC.
    Chen, S. P. (2004). The relationship between English proficiency and learning styles/ Multiple Intelligences: A case study of Fu-Hsing high school students. Unpublished master’s thesis. Graduate Institute of English National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.
    Chen, Y. C. (1999). The perceptual learning style preferences of Taiwanese junior high school students in learning English. Master Thesis. National Changhua Normal University, Hsinchu, Taiwan.
    Cheng, M. H. (1997). Teaching styles and learning styles. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co.
    Coates, S. (1972). Preschool embedded figures test. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.
    Crozier, W. (1997). Individual learners: Personality differences in education. London and New York: Routledge.
    Dai, L. M. (戴禮明). (1976). 性別、年級與智慧功能的關係. 國立政治大學教育研究所碩士論文.未出版. 台北市.
    Day, R. (1984). Student participation in the ESL classroom or some imperfections in practice. Language Learning, 34 (3), p.69-102.
    Diaz-Rico, L. T. (2004). Teaching English learners: strategies and methods. Pearson Education Inc., Boston.
    DiStefano, J. (1970). Interpersonal perceptions of field independent and field dependent teachers and students (Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, 1969). (University Microfilms No. 70-11, 225) Dissertation Abstracts International, 31, 463A-464A.
    Domino, G. (1979). Interactive effects of achievement orientation and teaching style on academic achievement. ACT Research Report, 39, p.1-9.
    Dreyer, C. (1992). Learner Variables as Predictors of ESL Proficiency. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Potschefstroom University for CHE, Potchefstroom.
    Dreyer, C. (1998). Teacher-student style wars in South Africa: the silent battle. System, 26, p.115-126.
    Dreyer, C., Wissing, D., & Wissing, M. (1996). The relationship between cognitive styles and pronunciation accuracy in English as a second language. South African Journal of Linguistics Supplement, 34, p.37-62.
    Dulay, H., Burt, M., & Krashen, S. (1982). Language Two. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Dunn, R., Deckinger, E. L., Withers, P., & Katzenstein, H. (1990). Should college students be taught how to do homework? The effects of studying marketing through individual perceptual strengths. Illinois School Research and Development Journal. 26(2), p.96-113.
    Ebeling, D. G. (2000). Adapting your teaching to any learning style. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(3), p.247-248.
    Elliott, A. R. (1995). Field independence/dependence, hemispheric specialization and attitude in relation to pronunciation accuracy in Spanish as a foreign language. The Modern Language Journal, 79, p.357-371.
    Ellis, R. (1986). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Ford, N., & Chen, S. Y. (2001). Matching/mismatching revisited: an empirical study of learning and teaching styles. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(1), p.5-22.
    French, J., Ekstrom, R., & Price, L. (1963). Manual for Kit of Reference Tests for Cognitive Factors. Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service.
    Gaeta, J. (1977). Teacher ratings by students as a function of match or mismatch in field dependence-independence (Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers-The State University, 1997). (University Microfilms No. 77-13, 462) Dissertation Abstracts International, 1977, 37, 7506A.
    Gayle, G. (1981). Personality, motivation, and second language learning. Canadian Journal of Education, 6(3), p.55-67.
    Gong, B. (2002). Comparative studies of GEPT and PETS in Taiwan and China. In selected papers from the eleventh international symposium on English learning/ fourth Pan Asian Conference. Taipei: Longman.
    Good, T. L., & Stipek, D. (1983). Individual differences in the classroom: A psychological perspective. In M. Fenstermacher & J. Goodlad (Eds.), NSSE Yearbook.
    Hansen, J., & Stansfield, C. (1981). Field dependent-independent cognitive styles and foreign language proficiency among college students. Language Learning, 31, p. 349-367.
    Hansen, J., & Stansfield, C. (1982). Student-teacher cognitive styles and foreign language achievement: A preliminary study. Modern Language Journal, 66, p.263-267.
    Hatch, E. (1974). Second language learning-Universals? Working Papers on Bilingualism, 3, p.1-18. [ED 123 870]
    Hayes, J., & Allinson, C. (1997). Learning styles and training and development in work settings: Lessons from educational research. Educational Psychology, 17(1-2), p.185-193.
    Huang, C.C. (2004). Individual factors on junior high school students’ English achievements. Master Thesis. Southern Taiwan University of Technology, Taiwan
    Hunt, D. (1970). A conceptual level matching model for coordinating learner characteristics with educational approaches. Interchange, 1(3), p.68-82.
    Hunt, J. (1964). How children develop intellectually. Children, 11, p.83-91.
    Hunt, J. (1971). Using intrinsic motivation to teach young children. Educational Technology, 11, p.78-80.
    Jamieson, J. (1992).The cognitive styles of reflection/impulsivity and field independence/dependence and ESL success. The Modern Language Journal, 76(6), p.492-501.
    James, C. (1973). A cognitive style approach to teacher-pupil interaction and the academic performance of black children. Unpublished master’s thesis, Rutgers-The State University.
    Johnson, D. M. (1992). Approaches to research in second language learning. London: Longman Group Ltd.
    Jonassen, D. H., & Grabowski, B. L. (1993). Handbook of individual differences, learning and instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
    Johnson J., Prior S., & Artuso M. (2000). Field dependence as a factor in second language communicative production. Language Learning, 50(3), p.529-567.
    Jones, S. (1993). Cognitive learning styles: Does awareness help? A review of selected literature. Language Awareness, 2(4), p.195-207.
    Kampwirth, T., & Bates, M. (1980). Modality preference and teaching methods: A review of the research. Academic Therapy, 15, p.597-605.
    Karp, S., Kissin, B., & Hustmeyer, F. (1970). Field dependence as a predictor of alcoholic therapy dropouts. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 150, p.77-83.
    Keefe, J. W. (1987). Learning Style: Theory and Practice. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.
    Kinsella, K. (1993). Perceptual learning preferences survey. In J. M. Reid (Ed), Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom (p.221-238). Boston, Massachusetts: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
    Kinsella, K. (1995). Understanding and empowering diverse learners in the ESL classroom. In J. M. Reid (Ed.), Learning sStyles in the ESL/EFL classroom, (p.170-194). Boston, Massachusetts: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
    Ko, Y. W. (2002). Perceptual style preferences and their relationship to English achievement and learning strategies of junior high EFL learners in Taiwan. Unpublished master’s thesis. Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
    Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.
    Krashen, S. (1977). The monitor model for adult second language performance. In M. Burt, H. Dulay & M. Finocchiaro( Eds), Viewpoints on English as a Second Language.(p. 151-161). New York: Regents.
    Lai, I. H. (2003). Washback effects of the general English proficiency test (GEPT) on English language teaching and learning. In 2003 national linguistic seminar. Kaohsiung Normal University.
    Lieu, P. H. (2000). A study of the effect of cognitive styles learning approaches on identifying English clause tasks. Unpublished master thesis. National Chongshan University, Koahsiung, Taiwan.
    Mahlios, M. C. (1990). The influence of cognitive style on the teaching practices of elementary teachers. In O. N. Saracho (Ed.), Cognitive style and early education (p.129-147). New York: Gordon & Breach Science Publishers.
    McKenna, F. (1990). Learning implications of field dependence-independence: Cognitive style versus cognitive ability. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 4, p.425-437.
    Messick, S. (1962). Hidden Figures Test. Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing Service, 1962.
    Messick, S. (1976). Personality consistencies in cognition and creativity. In S. Messick (Ed.), Individuality in learning: Implications of cognitive style and creativity for human development (p.4-22). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
    Moore, C. (1973). Styles of teacher behavior under simulated teaching conditions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Stanford University.
    Naiman, N., Frohlich, M., & Stern, H. (1975). The good language learner. Toronto: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
    Naiman, N., Frohlich, M., Stern, H., & Todesco, A. (1978). The good language teacher. Research in Education Series No.7. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
    Naiman, N., Frohlich, M., Stern, H., & Todesco, A. (1996). The good language learner. Bristol. PA: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
    Nebelkopf, E., & Dreyer, A. (1973). Continuous-discontinuous concept attainment as a function of individual differences in cognitive style. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 36, p.655-662.
    O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. U.K.: Cambridge U.P.
    Oxford, R. (1995). Gender differences in language learning styles: What do they mean? In J.M. Reid (Ed.), Learning styles in the ESL/EFL Classroom (p.34-47). Bosten, Massachusetts: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
    Oxford, R., & Anderson, N.J. (1995). A crosscultural view of learning styles. Language Teaching, 28, p.201-215.
    Oxford, R., Park-Oh, Y., Ito, S., & Sumrall, M. (1993). Japanese by satellite: Effects of motivation, gender, course level, and previous language learning experience on Japanese language achievement. Foreign Language Annals, 26 (3), p.359-371.
    Packer, J., & Bain, J. (1978). Cognitive style and teacher-student compatibility. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(5), p.864-871.
    Palmer, A. (1979). Compartmentalized and integrated control: an assessment of some evidence for two kinds of competence and implications for the classroom. Language Learning, 29, p.169-180.
    Paramo, H., & Tinajero, C. (1990). Field dependence/independence and performance in school: An argument against neutrality of cognitive style. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 70, p.1079-1087.
    Park, G. (1997). Learning style preferences of Korean, Mexican, Armenian-American, and Anglo students in secondary schools. National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) Bulletin, 81 (585), p.103-111.
    Pettigrew, F., & Heikkinen, M. (1985). Increased psychomotor skill through eclectic teaching. The Physical Educator, 43(3), p.140-146.
    Phifer, J. (1983). Effects of individual cognitive style and processing differences on
    metacognitive reading strategies, (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska), Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 2420.
    Phillips, F. (1999). Business students’ learning preferences and associated task performance. Journal of Education for Business, 75, p.27-32.
    Ramirez, M. (1973). Cognitive styles and cultural democracy in education. Social Science Quarterly, 53, p.895-904.
    Ramirez, M., & Castañeda, A. (1974). Cultural democracy, bicognitive development and education. New York: Academic Press.
    Reid, J. (1987). The learning style preferences of ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 21, (1), p.87-111.
    Reid, J. (Ed.). (1995). Learning Styles in ESL/EFL Classroom. Boston, Massachusetts: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
    Renninger, K., & Snyder, S. (1983). Effects of cognitive style on perceived satisfaction and performance among students and teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, p.668-676.
    Rubin, J. (1987). Learner strategies: Theoretical assumptions, research history and typology. In A.L. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 15-30). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
    Saracho, O. N. (1983). Assessing cognitive style in young children. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 8, p.229-236.
    Saracho, O. N. (1990). The match and mismatch of teachers’ and students’ cognitive styles. Early Child Development and Care, 54, p.99-109.
    Saracho, O. N. (1991). Students’ preference for field dependence-independence teacher characteristics. Educational Psychology, 11, (3–4), p.323–332.
    Saracho, O. N. (1997). Teachers and students’ cognitive styles in early childhood education. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.
    Saracho, O. N. (1999). A framework for effective classroom teaching: matching teachers and students’ cognitive styles. International Perspectives on Individual Differences, 1, p.297-314.
    Saracho, O. N. (2001). Cognitive style and kindergarten pupils’ preferences for teachers. Learning and Instruction, 11, p.195-209.
    Saracho, O. N. (2003). Matching teachers’ and students’ cognitive styles. Early Child Development and Care, 173, (2-3), p.161-17.
    Saracho, O. N., & Dayton, C. (1980). Relationship of teachers’ cognitive styles to pupils academic gains. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, p.544-549.
    Saracho, O. N., & Spodek, B. (1981). Teachers’ cognitive styles and their educational implications. Educational Forum, 45, (2), p.153-159.
    Saracho, O. N., & Spodek, B. (1986). Cognitive style and children’s learning: Individual variations in cognitive processes. In L. G. Katz (Ed.), Current topics in early childhood education (Vol. VI, p.177-194). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    描述: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    英國語文學系英語教學碩士在職專班
    93951016
    95
    資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0093951016
    数据类型: thesis
    显示于类别:[英國語文學系] 學位論文

    文件中的档案:

    档案 描述 大小格式浏览次数
    95101601.pdf42KbAdobe PDF2870检视/开启
    95101602.pdf16KbAdobe PDF22738检视/开启
    95101603.pdf119KbAdobe PDF21086检视/开启
    95101604.pdf15KbAdobe PDF2925检视/开启
    95101605.pdf27KbAdobe PDF21014检视/开启
    95101606.pdf63KbAdobe PDF24676检视/开启
    95101607.pdf26KbAdobe PDF21135检视/开启
    95101608.pdf77KbAdobe PDF21408检视/开启
    95101609.pdf40KbAdobe PDF21034检视/开启
    95101610.pdf117KbAdobe PDF22373检视/开启
    95101611.pdf57KbAdobe PDF21090检视/开启


    在政大典藏中所有的数据项都受到原著作权保护.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - 回馈