Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/99511
|
| Title: | 遊戲設計背後之電腦輔助語言教學教師思維:一位高中英文老師的個案研究
CALL Teacher Cognition Behind Game-based Language Instruction: A Case Study on a High School English Teacher |
| Authors: | 林世恩
Lin, Shih En |
| Contributors: | 招靜琪
Chao, Chin Chi
林世恩
Lin, Shih En |
| Keywords: | 教師認知
電腦輔助語言教學
遊戲
教師自主
Teacher cognition
Computer-Assisted Language Learning
Game
Teacher autonomy |
| Date: | 2016 |
| Issue Date: | 2016-08-02 15:42:48 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 教師思維一向被認為與教師的實際教學有重要的關聯。本個案研究探討一位現職語言教師設計的行動學習活動背後之教師思維，以期更深入了解此行動學習活動之設計，並為電腦輔助語言教學師資培育之設計提供新的思維與洞察。
本個案研究為質性研究。研究工具包括受訪教師對於此活動的公開分享、半結構式訪談、文件收集及與學生的非正式談話。在訪談中，個案詳述了她的課室教學及其他經驗，包括過往的學習、專業教師訓練及其在不同場域的經歷。這些資料則進一步透過Borg (2006)和Mishra & Koehler (2006) 提供的架構(分別為教師思維框架及TPACK架構圖)進行討論。此研究首先詳細說明此行動學習活動中的九個關卡及其中教師表現出的各項知識。接著從過往學習經驗、專業教師訓練及不同場域等角度去追溯教師思維的形成。此研究並藉此進一步討論將上述兩個架構融合、調整的可能性以及電腦融入語言教學師資培育課程設計的新思維。
研究結果顯示，以上兩個架構皆未含括與教師本身或教師自主有關之元素，而這些元素在此個案研究中皆扮演教師思維和相應教學活動成形之關鍵角色。此外，研究結果也顯示，Mishra & Koehler (2006)的TPACK中涵蓋的各種元素可能有不同的權重，進而彰顯此框架在應用上有更複雜的潛力。此個案研究期能提供更多思維及啟發給對於科技融入教學，或電腦融入語言教學師資培育課程設計有興趣者。
Teacher cognition has been regarded to have strong connections with teachers` teaching practices. The case study intends to investigate a practicing language teacher`s cognition behind her mobile-learning activity, an outdoor scavenger hunt activity with multiple missions. The main purpose of this study is to explore how the activity was designed and to further provide insights into CALL teacher education.
This is a qualitative study and data were collected through the participant`s presentation about the activity, two semi-structured interviews, documentation and informal talks with students. In the semi-structured interviews, the participant detailed her classroom practices and other related experiences, including past learning experiences, professional development and her experiences in other contexts. The participant`s experiences were then reconstructed and analyzed with Borg (2006) and Mishra & Koehler (2006) as the frameworks. The study first detailed the nine missions included in the participant’s scavenger hunt activity and analyzed the teacher`s knowledge shown in the activity. Then, the formation of the teacher`s cognitions was traced mainly in three aspects: past schooling, professional coursework and classroom practices under various contexts. Finally, the revised, integrated framework and some insights into CALL teacher education were discussed.
The result showed that the frameworks are lacking elements related to teachers themselves and teacher autonomy, both of which serve as a premise in the complex interaction of the elements in teacher cognitions and the resulting classroom practices. Other than that, it was found that the elements in the framework provided by Mishra & Koehler (2006) might carry different weights, which indicated more complexity in the framework. It is expected that those who are interested in technology integration into language teaching or CALL teacher education will find this study insightful and inspiring. |
| Reference: | Bailey, K. M., B. Bergthold, B. Braunstein, N. Jagodzinski Fleischman, M. P. Holbrook, J. Tuman, X. Waissbluth & L. J. Zambo(1996). The language learners’ autobiography: examining the “apprenticeship of observation”. In D. Freeman & J. C. Richards
(Eds.), Teacher Learning in Language Teaching (pp. 11−29). New York: Cambridge
University Press
Borg, S. (1998c). Teachers’ pedagogical systems and grammar teaching: A qualitative
study. TESOL Quarterly, 32 (1), 9−38.
Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36(2), 81-109.
Borg, S. (2006). Teacher Cognition and Language Education: Research and Practice. New
York: Continuum
Chiu, Y. H., Kao, C. W., & Reynolds, B. L. (2012). The relative effectiveness of digital
game‐based learning types in English as a foreign language setting: A meta‐analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(4), 104-107.
Chiu, Y. H. (2013). Computer-assisted second language vocabulary instruction: A meta-analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(2).
Cochran, K. F. (1991). Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Tentative Model for Teacher Preparation.
Delcloque, P. (2000). The history of CALL web exhibition. Retrieved from http://www.eurocall-languages.org/resources/history_of_call.pdf
Duarte, I. B. (1998). Research in Second Language Teacher Education. TESOL Quarterly, 32(3), 617-622.
Egbert, J., Paulus, T. M., & Nakamichi, Y. (2002). The impact of CALL instruction on classroom computer use: A foundation for rethinking technology in teacher education. Language Learning & Technology, 6(3), 108-126.
Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration?. Educational technology research and development, 53(4), 25-39.
Garrett, N. (2009). Technology in the Service of Language Learning: Trends and Issues. Modern Language Journal, 93697-718. doi:
10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00968.x
Galloway, J. P. (1997). How teachers use and learn to use computers. In Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 1997, 857-859
Gerring, J. (2004). What is a case study and what is it good for?. American political
science review, 98(02), 341-354.
Gerrish, M. (2011). Scavenger Hunts Encourage Learning. Teaching Young Children, 4(4), 21-23.
Garber‐Miller, K. (2006). Playful textbook previews: Letting go of familiar mustache
monologues. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 50(4), 284-288.
Genc, Z. S. (2010). Teacher autonomy through reflective journals among teachers of English as a foreign language in Turkey. Teacher Development,14(3), 397-409.
Hwang, G. J., & Wu, P. H. (2012). Advancements and trends in digital game‐based
learning research: a review of publications in selected journals from 2001 to
2010. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(1), 6-10. doi:
10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01242.x.
Johnston, B., & Goettsch, K. (2000). In search of the knowledge base of language
teaching: Explanations by experienced teachers. Canadian Modern Language
Review, 56(3), 437-468.
Kessler, G. (2006). Assessing CALL teacher training: What are we doing and what could we do better. Teacher education in CALL, 23-42.
Kinzie, M. B., & Joseph, D. R. (2008). Gender differences in game activity preferences of middle school children: implications for educational game design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(5-6), 643-663.
Kiili, K. (2005). Digital game-based learning: Towards an experiential gaming model.
The Internet and higher education, 8(1), 13-24.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What Is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge? Contemporary Issues In Technology & Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.
Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Cain, W. (2013). What Is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)? Journal Of Education, 193(3), 13-19.
Liang, J. C., Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., Yang, C. J., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). Surveying in-service preschool teachers` technological pedagogical content knowledge. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(4).
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. The Teachers College Record,108(6), 1017-1054.
McGrath, I. (2000) Teacher autonomy. In B. Sinclair, I. McGrath and T. Lamb (eds.) Learner autonomy, teacher autonomy: Future directions (pp.100-110). London: Longman.
McCain, C. (2007). Scavenger hunt assignments in academic libraries: viewpoints versus reality. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 14(1), 19-31.
Northrup, P. T., & Little, W. (1996). Establishing instructional technology benchmarks for teacher preparation programs. Journal of Teacher Education,47(3), 213-22.
Ostovar-Namaghi, S. A. (2012). Constraints on Language Teacher Autonomy: A Grounded Theory. TESL Reporter, 45(1), 37-55.
Pearson, L. C., & Moomaw, W. (2005). The Relationship between Teacher Autonomy and Stress, Work Satisfaction, Empowerment, and Professionalism. Educational research quarterly, 29(1), 38-54.
Robb, T. (2006). Helping teachers to help themselves. Teacher education in CALL, 335-347.
Ramashova, G. N., Toleuova, T. S., & Saugabay, A. Z. (2011). Teacher autonomy as the factor of professional development in foreign language teaching. Education and Science Without Borders,2(3), 81.
Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin, T. S. (2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) the development
and validation of an assessment instrument for pre-service teachers. Journal of
Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 123-149.
Schwab, J. J. (1983). The practical 4: Something for curriculum professors to do. Curriculum inquiry, 13(3), 239-265.
Smith, R. C. (2001). Teacher education for teacher-learner autonomy. Language in language teacher education.
Thompson, A. D., & Mishra, P. (2007). Breaking news: TPCK becomes TPACK!. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 24(2), 38.
Yip, F. W., & Kwan, A. C. (2006). Online vocabulary games as a tool for teaching and learning English vocabulary. Educational media international,43(3), 233-249. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
英國語文學系
101551017 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0101551017 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [英國語文學系] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 101701.pdf | 8242Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 172 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
