臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：小組合作學習在醫學校院大一生物科教學實施之成效
作者：林秀玉
作者(外文)：Show-Yu Lin
校院名稱：國立臺灣師範大學
系所名稱：科學教育研究所
指導教授：李田英
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2003
主題關鍵詞：小組合作學習；生物科教學；醫學校院；small group learning；biology classes；meidcal university
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(3) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:3
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:29
本研究探討醫學校院大一生物科部份實驗課實施小組合作學習教學時，學生在「生物醫學認知」、「學習技能」與「學習態度」等之表現和實施上的困難。本研究屬個案研究，樣本是某醫學校院的大一學生237位，每組5至6人，上下學期各為42組和41組。研究工具包括團體學習量表、教學目標達成問卷、各種學習歷程檔案記錄單和教學效果訪談問卷等，均經專家審查，其中團體學習量表、教學目標達成問卷，學習歷程檔案記錄單之書面摘要評量表、上台報告評量表和書面報告評量表等量化資料的信度(α)值分別為0.84、0.83、0.84、0.91和0.83，其餘記錄單屬質性資料。量化資料以描述性統計表之，質性資料則依研究者發展之編碼系統量化，之後再統計各次要面向的表現頻率，最後互相比對量化數據與質性資料的內容。研究結果如下：1.生物醫學認知方面，65.8%的學生自覺生物醫學知識有增加，而且對所探討主題的一般概念或概念關係之認知比較多，並能深刻認識和瞭解自己所專責的內容，其因果推論和認知評價等表現亦有提升，但對他組所探討的主題比較無法深入；2.學習技能方面的表現比傳統大班講述式的教學出色，如63.7%自認任務工作技能有增加，77.2%自認這些技能的表現良好；69.2%自認團隊工作技能有增加，70.9%自認這些技能的表現良好；3.學習態度方面，72.7%自覺有小組認同與參與感，48.5%喜歡學習活動，43.8%自認能養成主動學習態度，這當中以學習樂趣和小組認同的表現最好，社會態度的表現比較差。在本研究當中實施小組合作學習有下列困難，因而限制其學習效果：1.學生在高中欠缺小組合作學習經驗、背景知識不足、且外文閱讀能力不足；2.各組所探討生物學主題的切入深度不同，造成找尋和閱讀資料迥異；3.任課教師人力不足、對學生所選的主題輔導有限；4.校內圖書館藏不足；5.校內活動和課程時間的安排衝突、校內場地和設備不足，造成執行上有困難等。本研究建議未來大一生物科可繼續施行小組合作學習的教學，此外教師宜多加評量學生因果推論和認知評價的能力，以及對他組的生物醫學認知，並鼓勵學生找尋合宜的網路資料，加強學習態度的培育和評量等。
This study was intended to investigate the effectiveness of cooperative small group learning in biology classes at a medical university in terms of biological medical cognition, learning skills and learning attitudes. There were 237 students in the biology classes involved in 2 semesters of school year of 2000. The data collected included Small Group Learning Questionnaires, Questionnaires of Teaching Achievement, portfolios constructed by the subjects and 33 students interviewed by the author. The reliabilities (α) of Small Group Learning Questionnaires, Questionnaires of Teaching Achievement and the rating-lists of abstract, presentation and report in the portfolios were 0.84, 0.83 and 0.84, 0.91, 0.83, respectively. All the other data were encoded with the coding system developed by the author. The results are shown as follows: 1. 65.8% of the subjects regard their biological medical cognition was improved. They performed deep understanding, well at general concepts and relationships of the concepts of the particular biological themes chosen. The learning process induced cause-effect reasoning and cognitive valuing. However, their comprehension with the themes other than theirs was not as much. 2. In learning skills, the performance of task-work skills and group-work skills were far better than traditional didactic lectures of the large classes. At task-work skills, 63.7% of the subjects recognized improvement and 77.2% reckoned they performed well. At group-work skills, 69.2% of the students admitted improvement and 70.9% said they performed well. 3. In learning attitudes, 72.7% thought they had good group commitment. Nevertheless, there were 48.5% of the students who liked the activities and 43.8% took the attitude of active learning. Students enjoyed learning and group-work participation more than society’s attitude. However, the author found that the conduct of the study revealed some problems: 1. Students had limited cooperative learning experience in high school, insufficient background knowledge and incompetent English reading proficiency. 2. The different perspectives and knowledeges towards the themes affected the selection and reading of learning materials. 3. Insufficient manpower of the faculty members could not cover various topics selected by the students. 4. The school library was also unable to provide adequate resources. 5. Finally, students found they were trapped in several dilemmas, such as time consuming activities both demanded by school calendar and class syllabus and the inadequate place and instruments interfered with the implementation of teaching. Suggestions for future classes include that teachers increase the evaluation of cause-result reasoning, cognitive valuing, and the biological medical cognition toward their fellow students. Besides, teachers should encourage students to select proper internet learning materials and enhance good learning attitudes as well.
1.于富雲（2001）：從理論基礎探究合作學習的教學效益。教育資料與研究，38, 22-28。new window
2.吳英長（1989）︰國小學生小組討論運作方式之初探︰以萬芳國小為例。台北市︰九二八文化事業公司。
3.李世代（1997）：教師對問題導向學習之態度與意見。醫學教育，1，86-90。new window
4.李宇宙、高美英、呂碧鴻、施子薇、張宏俊、李明濱（1997）：小班教學「團體學習量表」之信度與因素分析。醫學教育，1，275-283。new window
5.李明濱(1997)：醫學教育雜誌的角色與功能。醫學教育， 1，3-4。new window
6.李明濱、李宇宙、林信男、謝博生、陳恆順(1997)：利用小組教學方式實施醫學倫理教學。醫學教育，1(2)，63-77。new window
7.李明濱、謝博生(1999)：醫學生之醫療態度教育。醫學教育， 3，1-2。new window
8.李嘉祥（1999）：合作學習對國中學生生物學習動機之影響。高雄市：國立高雄師範大學科教所碩士論文。
9.周立勳（1998）：分組合作學習中兒童的情意表現。嘉義師院學報，12，39-72。
10.林妙霙（1994）：合作學習對國三學生學習「地層記錄地質事件」單元成效的影響。國立台灣師範大學地球科學研究所碩士論文，未出版。new window
11.林菀如、王國華（1996）：合作學習在國中脊椎動物單元實施成效之探討。中華民國第十二屆科學教育學術研討會論文彙編，99-113。
12.韋金龍、陳玉美(2002)︰合作學習英文教學網站. [Online]. Available: http://www.audi.nchu. edu.tw/coop/aim. htm
13.張春興（1987）：心理學概要。台北市︰東華出版社。
14.梁繼權、呂碧鴻、李明濱、謝博生（1999）：以問題為基礎之學習在小班教學之應用。醫學教育，3(2)，32-39。new window
15.莊明哲 (1993)︰美國哈佛醫學院New Pathway課程介紹。台灣醫學教育研討會︰全民健保制度下之醫學教育研討。國立台灣大學醫學院，24-40。
16.陳玉琨、陳震寰、潘競成、楊安航、江宏、何橈通（2001）：問題導向學習在病理教學之可行性。醫學教育，5(4)，54-67。new window
17.陳震寰（1999）︰利物浦大學簡介。台北榮總學訊，26，10-14。
18.黃台珠、黃建瑜（2000）：國中理化教師試行合作學習之行動研究。科學與教育學刊，4，307-319。
19.黃伯超（1993）：先進國家醫學院課程安排及教學方式之研究。教育部教育研究委員會。
20.黃政傑（1992）：台灣省高級職業學校合作學習教學法實驗研究。台北市：國立台灣師範大學教育研究中心。
21.黃政傑、林佩璇（2000）：合作學習。台北市︰五南圖書。
22.楊培銘(1999)：臨床教學現況之省思。醫學教育，3(4)，1-2。new window
23.蔡永巳（1997）：國二理化科試行合作學習之合作式行動研究。國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
24.盧富美（1992）：談合作學習及其教學流程。教師之友，33卷，4，3-8。
25.謝正宜（1997）：師生對團體互動的認知與問題導向學習。醫學教育，1(2)，92-93。new window
26.謝傅生（1997）：醫學教育－理念與實務。台北市︰金名圖書。
27.謝博生、陳慶餘(1995)：我國實施基礎臨床醫學整合及啟發式小組教學的模式與可行性。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告（計畫編號：NSC 84-2511-S-002-004）。
28.Association of American Medical Colleges (1984). Physicians for the Twenty-First Century: Report of the Project Panel on the General Professional Education of the Psysician and College Preparation for Medicine. Waverly Press, Inc.
29.Ausubel,D. P. (1968). Educational Psycology: A Cognitive View. New York: Holt. Rinehart and Winston.
30.Baloche L. A. (1998). The Cooperative Classroom : Empowering Learning. The Cooperative Classroom. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.
31.Basili, P. and Sanford, J. (1991). Conceptual Chang Strategies and Cooperative Group Work in Chemistry. Journal for Research in Science Teaching, 18(4), 293-304.
32.Bloom B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain. New York: Mckay.
33.Brunng, J. L. (1966). The Motivational Effects of Cooperation and Competition in the Means-Independent Situation. Journal of Social and Psychology, 68, 269-274.
34.Burron, B., James, M. L. and Ambrosio, A. L. (1993). The Effect of Cooperative Learning in a Physical Science Course for Elementary/Middle Level Preservice Teachers, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(7), 167-181. 697-707.
35.Campbell, L. Campbell, B., and Dickinson, D. (1996) Teaching and Learning through Multiple Intelligences. 郭俊賢、陳淑惠譯(2001)，多元智慧的教與學。台北市：遠流出版社。
36.Damon, W. (1984). Peer Education: The Untapped Potential. Journal of Applied Developmental Psycology, 5, 331-343.
37.Denise M. K. (1997) Using Cooperative Learning to Improve Reading and Writing in Mathematical Problem Solving. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties. 13 (1), 71-82. EJ589375.
38.Deutsch, M. (1949). A Theory of Cooperation and Competition. Human Relations, 2, 129-152.
39.Dougherty, R C. (1995). Cooperative Learning and Enhanced Communication: Effects on Student Performance, Retention, and Attitudes in General Chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education. 72(9), 793-97. EJ525199.
40.Dougherty, R. C. (1997) Grade/Study-Performance Contracts, Enhanced Communication, Cooperative Learning, and Student Performance in Undergraduate Organic Chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education. 74(6), 722-26. EJ546514.
41.Forman E. A. (1989). The Role of Peer Interaction in the Social Construction of Mathematical Knowledge. Ineternal Journal of Educational Research, 13, 55-70.
42.Geelan, D. R. (1997). Epistemological Anarchy and the Many Forms of Constructivism. Science and Education, 6, 15-28.
43.Good, T., Reys, B. J., Grouws D. A. and Mulryan, C. M. (1990). Using Work-Groups in Mathematic Instruction. Educational Leadership. 47(4), 56-62.
44.Hendrix, J. C. (1996). Cooperative Learning: Building a Democratic Community. Clearing House. 69(6), 333-36. EJ540672.
45.Johnson D. W. and Johnson R. T. (1999). Learning Together and Alone: Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Learning..
46.Johnson D. W., Johnson R. T. and Holubec E. J. (1994). Cooperative Learning in the Classroom. Alexandria, VA.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
47.Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. and Stanne M. B.(2000). Cooperative Learning Method: A Meta-Analysis. [Online]. Available: http://www.clcrc.com
48.Karle, H. (1998). International Perspective of Medical Education at the Opening of the Twenty-First Century. 第二屆海峽兩岸暨香港地區醫學教育研討會。105-108。國立台灣大學醫學院。
49.Katzenbach, J. R. and Smith, D. K. (1993). The Wisdom of Teams : Creating the High-Performance Organization . Mclcinsey and Company, Inc .
50.Keeler, C. M. (1994). Cooperative Learning in Statistics. Teaching Statistics. 16(3), 81-84. EJ502075.
51.Keeler, C. M. and Voxman, M. (1994). The Effect of Cooperative Learning in Remedial Freshman Level Mathematics. Amatyc Review. 16(1), 37-44. EJ512539.
52.Knabb, M. T. (2000). Discovering Teamwork: A Novel Cooperative Activity to Encourage Group Interdependence. 62(3), 211-213.
53.Lazarowitz R. H., Baird J. H. and Lazarowitz, R. (1984). Student-Student Interactions in Science Classrooms: A Naturalistic Study. Science Education, 68(5). 603-619.
54.Lord T. R. (1994). Using Cooperative Learning in the Teaching of High School Biology. The American Biology Teacher. 56(5), 280-284.
55.Lump A. T. and Staver, J. R. (1995). Peer Collaboration and Concept Development: Learning about Photosynthesis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 32(1). 71-98.
56.Marzano R. J., Pickering D. and McTighe J. (1993). Assessing Student Outcomes: Performance Assessment Using the Dimensions of Learning Model. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervion and Curriculum Development.
57.Nattiv, A. (1994). Helping Behaviors and Math Achievement Gain of Students Using Cooperative Learning. The Elementary School Journal. 94(3), 285-297.
58.Nichols, D. J., and Miller, B. R. (1994). Cooperative Learning and Student Motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 19(2), 167-178.
59.Norwood, K. S. (1995). The Effects of the Use of Problem Solving and Cooperative Learning on the Mathematics Achievement of Underprepared College Freshmen. Primus. 5(3). 229-52. EJ520587
60.Okebukola, P. A. (1986). Reducing Anxiety in Science Classes: An Experiment Involving Some Models of Class Interaction. Educational Research. 28(2), 146-149.
61.Parker, R. E. (1985).Small-Group Cooperative Learning Improving Academic Social Gains in the Classroom. NASS Bulletin. 69(479), 48-57.
62.Phelps E. and Damon, W. (1989). Problem Solving with Equals: Peer Collaboration as a Context for Learning Mathematics and Spatial Concepts. Journal of Educational Psycology. 81, 639-646.
63.Putnam, J. W. (1993). Cooperative Learning and Stratigies for Inclusion: Celebrating Diversity in the Classroom. Baltimore, Md.: P. H. Brookes. Pub.
64.Roth, W. M., and Roychoudhury, A. (1993). The Concept Map as Tool for the Collabrotive Construction of Knowledge: A Microanalysis of High School Physics Students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(5), 503-534.
65.Sharan S. and Sharan Y. (1976). Small-Group Teaching. EngLewood Cliffs, NJ：Educational Technology Publications.
66.Sharan, S. (1990). Cooperative Learning: A Perspective on Research and Practice. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Cooperative Learning: Theory and Research (pp. 285-300). NY: Praeger Publishers.
67.Sharan,S. and Shachar,H. (1988). Language and Learning in the Cooperative Classroom. Springer Verlag: New York Inc.
68.Shaw, M. E. (1958). Some Emotional Factors in Cooperation and Competition. Journal of Personality. 26:155-169.
69.Shroyer, G. (1989). Learning Outcomes from Cooperative Learning Teaching. Distributed to participants of the BSCS Middle School Project Fieldtest Workshop. Colorado Springs, CO: BSCS.
70.Simsek, A., and Tsai, B.(1992). The Impact of Cooperative Group Compostion on Student Performance and Attitudes during Interactive Videodisc Instruction. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 19(3), 86-91.
71.Slavin, R. E. (1980). Cooperative Learning. Review of Educational Research, 50(2), 315-342.
72.Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research and Practice. Edgewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
73.Tombari M. L. and Borich G. D. (1999). Authentic Assessment in the Classroom : Applications and Practice. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Merrill
74.Vermette, P. J. (1998). Making Cooperative Learning Work : Student Teams in K-12 Classrooms. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
75.Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind and Society. Cambridge, MA: Hardvard University Press.
76.Wadsworth B. J. (1971). Piaget Theory of Cognitive Development: An Introduction for Students of Psychology and Education. New York. David McKay Company, Inc.
77.Watson, S. B. (1991). Cooperative Learning and Group Educational Modules: Effects on Cognitive Achievement of High School Biology Students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(2), 141-146.
78.Watson, S. B. (1992). The essential elements of cooperative learning. The American Biology Teacher, 54(2), 84-87.
79.Weiner, B (1985). An Attributional Theory of Achievement Motivation and Emotion. Psycological Review. 92, 548-573.
80.Wood, D. (1995). Problem-based learning: Helping your Student Gain the Most from PBL. Hamilton, Ontario.
81.Zehr C. L., Butler R. G. and Richardson R. J. (1996). Students’ Use of Anatomy Modules in Problem-Based Medical Education at McMaster University, Academic Medicine, 71(9), 1015-1017.
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：1117（臺灣：1116，外國：1） ／ 本年度總使用人次：2042760 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67841938
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上