:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:臺灣私立大專校院通識英文教師教學工作的建制民族誌研究
作者:林孟煒
作者(外文):LIN, MENG-WEI
校院名稱:國立中正大學
系所名稱:教育學研究所
指導教授:洪志成
學位類別:博士
出版日期:2023
主題關鍵詞:建制民族誌英語授課課程高等教育通識英文新管理主義institutional ethnographyEnglish as a Medium of Instructionhigher educationGeneral EnglishNew Managerialism
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(0) 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:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:0
通識英文(又稱大一英文、第二英文等)是臺灣多數大專校院共同必修課程,目的提升非英外文主修學生的英語文能力。因修課與授課人數眾多,2005年教育部「獎勵大學教學卓越計畫」以優化課程為目標,鼓勵大學獨立通識英文課程管理單位—語文/言中心,由中心制定課程實施與統整方式,依照獨立於其他通識課程的課程修習要點與規範運作,常見有共同課綱、共同教材、畢業門檻與分級分班。
然而,大學為獲得經費補助,常需透過通識英文的課程實施完成教育部「獎勵私立大學校院校務發展計畫」、「高等教育深耕計畫」及「大專校院學生雙語化學習計畫」(後文稱大學雙語計畫)等計畫之重要績效指標(key performance indicator, KPI)。鑒於以上背景,通識英文實施在計畫、課程修習要點、共同課綱、教材等文本中介(textually-mediated)下,形成其他大學課程少見的跨地域統治關係(translocal ruling relation)—建制(institution)。
教師的通識英文教學工作過去少有討論。但2018年起,在教育部「教學實踐研究計畫」申請動機中,陸續看見通識英文教師提及遵循共同課綱與共同教材卻經驗教師專業與建制工作流程(institutional working process)落差。建制民族誌(institutional ethnography, IE)將這種工作者困惑自身定位,稱為斷裂(disjuncture)。
本研究採建制民族誌研究取徑,以私立大專校院通識英文教師教學工作的斷裂經驗為立足點(standpoint),分析處於通識英文的建制工作流程不同位置教師作為建制代理人(agent)與課程實施依循的論述(discourse)。研究訪談14所私立大專校院現任通識英文教師16人,其中兼任教師5人,專案教師4人,專任教師7人(含曾/現任語言中心主任3人)。搭配文本分析,回答研究問題:(一)共同課綱、共同教材、畢業門檻與分級授課形成的建制工作流程為何?流程中教師的斷裂與看不見的工作為何?(二)流程中不同位置的教師建制代理的工作與跳脫協作為何?(三)通識英文實施依循的論述為何?
研究發現:(一)通識英文使用共同課綱、共同教材建立建制工作流程,教師微調空間小,且口說練習相對聽、讀與寫技能練習與評量懸缺。畢業門檻即便不納入課程評量,已足以讓課程受量化指標影響。學校舉辦比賽蒐集質化學習成果,教師同時蒐集質量化成果還需協調級內差距,看不見的工作倍增。
(二)兼任教師依照流水線要求授課,時時擔心未完成指標扯學校後腿。專案與專任教師常兼任基層行政工作,協助建立與維繫建制,就算感受斷裂,也努力避免損害建制。語言中心主任雖有課程實施方向決定權,但也感各項計畫壓力,盡力平衡學生期望與校內各單位質量化指標成果收集需求。整體而言,教學工作以完成學校與政策期望的質量化指標的文本協作最重要目標。
(三)通識英文實施依循的論述:首先,共同課綱與課本製造課程流水線,去專業化,降低課程成本又制造課程優化錯覺,遵循著標準化的管理論述;第二個論述是通識英文功能定位的多方交織,大學目的為培育專業能力,學生與系所將通識英文視為輔助工具,未給予重視,但國家政策又期望透過通識英文提升學生能力,使功能定位也出現斷裂;第三個論述是新管理主義的責信(accountability)論述,通識英文穩定且持續提供學校大量質、量化學習資料作為學生學習成效的責信保證,也作為申請計畫經費之用;最後,教育部大學雙語計畫欲將英語文形塑為大學的第二語言,依循學術全球化(academic globalization)的論述,寄託英語授課(English as a Medium of Instruction, EMI)課程 提升本國生英語文能力。然而,當大學雙語計畫訂定EMI修課語言門檻為歐洲語文共同參考架構(Common European Framework of Reference for Language, CEFR)B2,反使通識英文背負提升學生能力的責任。計畫實施時,私立專校院因多英語文低學習成就的學生,未及修課門檻,享受更少資源,擴大公私立大學間的不平等。
本研究反思通識英文實施依循的論述與教師教學工作在動態政策下的關聯,思索未來通識英文課程的可能發展策略。
General English, or English for Freshman/ English for Sophomore, is a required general education course offered by most universities in Taiwan. The aim of the course is to enhance non-English majors’ English ability. Considering the number of students who enrolled in the course and the number of instructors who teach the courses are huge, the Ministry of Education (MOE, Taiwan) has encouraged universities to set a unit, i.e., Language Center, to coordinate General English under the Teaching Excellency Project in 2005. Since then, General English has been separated from other courses in General Education Center. It has its own implementation regulations, such as, the requirement to follow a master course syllabus, using unified teaching materials (including the same textbooks), preparing students to pass English graduation benchmark tests, and grouping students according to their English ability.
Meanwhile, to gain funding from the government, the implementation of General English is expected to fulfill many key performance indicators (KPIs) as set forth in the Funding Direction Regarding the Development Plan for Universities and Colleges, the Higher Education Sprout Project, and the Program on Bilingual Education for Students in College (the BEST Program) supported by the MOE. Therefore, being textually mediated by these government projects, a master course syllabus, and unified teaching materials, General English instructors’ daily practices reveal interwoven institutional translocal ruling relations, which have rarely existed in other university courses.
The process regarding how General English instructors’ teaching practices and decisions formed by ruling relations has been comparatively understudied in previous research. However, since 2018, many General English instructors have stated that the master course syllabus and unified teaching materials have constrained their professional practices in applying for the Teaching Practice Research Program. This ‘disjuncture’ in institutional ethnography (IE), i.e., the gap between instructors’ professional practices and the institutional working process often baffles instructors.
The study follows the IE approach to analyzes private universities General English instructors’ disjuctures in teaching as the standpoint. The aim is to explore discourses followed by instructors (as agents of institutions) in different positions within the institutional working process of General English implementation. The study involved interviews with 16 instructors of General English at 14 private universities and private science and technology universities, including 4 full-time contract-based instructors, 7 full time instructors (3 of whom currently serve or have previously served as directors at language centers), and 5 part-time instructors. Along with texts analysis, the study aims at investigating the following three questions: (1) What is the General English institutional working process as guided by a master syllabus, unified teaching materials, graduation benchmark regulations, and proficiency grouping? What disjunctures have the instructors experienced in the process? What are their invisible works? (2) Situated in different positions in the process, how are their works mediated or not mediated by texts? (3) What discourses have been followed in General English course implementation?
The study finds that: (1) the institutional working process has been primarily established based on a master syllabus and unified teaching materials, allowing limited room for adjustments. Instructors have adhered to the predetermined curriculum, resulting in their teaching decisions sometimes deviating from their original objectives. Although the graduation benchmark test score does not directly contribute to the final evaluation, the quantitative index still exerts influence on instructors' decisions and students' expectations regarding the course. Furthermore, bridging the proficiency gap among students and collecting both qualitative and quantitative evidences have become increasing challenges, yet these additional responsibilities and efforts often remain invisible.
(2) Part-time instructors closely adhered to the institutional working process to avoid standing out or deviating from the norm. On the other hand, full-time contract-based and full-time instructors often have additional administrative duties. They played a role in both constructing and maintaining the institutions. While they recognized the presence of disjunctures, they were cautious not to disrupt the existing ruling relations. As for directors, they held the authority to make decisions regarding the development and implementation of the course. However, they also have faced dilemmas to meet KPIs and balance the needs of students. Overall, General English instructors’ teaching works are mediated by the qualitative and quantitative indexes to fulfill schools’ and government’s expectations.
(3) The institutional working process of General English follows several discourses. Firstly, there is a belief in standardized management, where universities enforce the use of master syllabus and unified teaching materials to reduce costs by employing part-time or contract-based instructors while fulfilling set KPIs. Meanwhile, students and academic units tend to prioritize content courses over General English. However, General English is expected to raise students’ proficiency under the BEST program. The expectation difference forms a disjucture between institutions. Thirdly, a New Managerialism discourse allocates accountability on General English instructors, presenting them with the challenge of achieving qualitative and quantitative indexes to secure government projects and funding. Fourthly, the BEST program adopts discourses of academic globalization by establishing English as the second official language in universities. When universities face limitations in allocating more credits to General English courses, they rely on students to enhance their English proficiency through English as a Medium of Instruction (EMI) courses. However, the MOE sets the threshold for EMI courses at the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) B2 level in the BEST program, putting significant pressure on General English instructors to adequately prepare students for EMI courses. Consequently, this discourse has led to limited benefits being extended to students at private universities, since they often struggle to meet the CEFR B2 threshold. This disparity in achievement may contribute to a broader educational inequality between public and private universities.
The study aims to critically examine the discourses underlying General English course implementation and its relationship with instructors’ teaching, and thus seeks to offer insights that can inform future implementations of General English course.
中文部分
大澤真幸(2021)。給所有人的社會學史講義: 跟隨大澤真幸一起建立當代必備的社會學素養(顏雪雪譯)。衛城出版。
上野千鶴子(2023)。 將自身利益放在首位的女性,定能改寫女人的生存策略。載於上野千鶴子與鈴木涼美著,始於極限:女性主義往複書簡(曹逸冰譯)(頁274-285)。新星出版社。(原著出版於2022年)
孔長江、吳歆嬫(2010)。科技大學新生對大一英文分級教學問卷調查研究。國立虎尾科技大學學報,29(2),65-80。http://doi:10.6425/JNHUST.201006.0065
方正一、洪志成(2013)。指派教師研習與學校對策間的拉扯:教師專業觀點。 嘉大教育研究學刊,30,97-122。
方永泉(2009)。教育人─博雅教育的新典範,當代教育研究,17,147-157。
王文科、王智弘(2012)。教育研究法。五南。
王保進、周祝瑛、王輝煌(2011)。獎勵大學教學卓越計畫成效評估。行政院研究發展考核委員會委託之研究報告(編號:RDEC-RES-099-023)。
王淳瑩(2019)。用分組合作學習進行英語課堂活動對於非英語主修學生之英語聽說能力影響之研究 生活英語聽講(一)(編號:PGE1080056)。教育部教學實踐研究計畫。
王雅玄(2007)。伯恩斯坦《邁向教育傳遞理論》評述。中等教育,58(5),152-166。
王鈺琪(2021)。提升第二語言課程中理想我形象與溝通意願:以大一英文課程為例。教學實踐研究。1(4),1-23。http://doi:10.7007/JSoTL.202112_1(4).0001
王增勇(2012)。建制民族誌:為弱勢者發聲的研究取徑。載於瞿海源等編,社會及行為科學研究法(頁314-343)。東華。
王增勇(2014)。福利造家?:國家對家庭照顧實踐的規訓。載於黃應貴編,21世紀的家:臺灣的家何去何從?(頁33-65)。群學。
王增勇(2020)。建制民族誌在臺灣的發展與現況。載於王增勇、梁莉芳(主編),解碼日常生活的權力遊戲(頁1-32)。群學。
王應棠(2010)。研究訪談的特性:哲學詮釋學的觀點。教育與多元文化研究,2,1-20。
朱秀瑜、林柏翰(2018)。跨領域專業英文簡報教學-創新與反思。通識教育學報,6,79-98。http:// doi:10.6517/MCUT.201812_(6).0004
江宜樺(2005)。從博雅到通識:大學教育理念的發展與現況。政治與社會哲學 評論,14,37-64。
但昭偉(2018)。期盼通識教育理論的本土論述。但昭偉等著,哲學大師的通識教育思想(頁i-ii)。開學文化。
何萬順(2020)。從「雙語國家」和「雙語教育」 反思臺灣的語言價值觀 。臺灣教育評論月刊,9(9),18-24。
何萬順、周祝瑛、蘇紹雯、蔣侃學、陳郁萱(2013)。我國大學英語畢業門檻政策之檢討,教育政策論壇,16,1-30。
吳麗珍、黃惠滿、李浩銑(2014)。方便取樣和立意取樣之比較。護理雜誌,61(3),105-111。https://doi.org/10.6224/JN.61.3.105
呂宜霖(2020)。一加一大於N-數學實踐社群能動性之探究[未出版碩士論文]。國立臺灣師範大學教育政策與行政研究所。
呂美慧(2008)。M. Foucault與D. E. Smith論述分析之比較與其對教育研究之啟示。臺北市立教育大學學報:教育類,39(2),71-103。http://doi:10.6336/JUTe/2008.39(2)3
李佳隆、吳若蕙(2016)。探究大學英語文能力畢業門檻與學習動機、測驗焦慮、測驗表現之關係。英語教學期刊,40(3),61-86。http://doi:10.6330/ETL.2016.40.3.0
李奉儒(2014)。教育哲學研究之詮釋學方法。載於林逢祺、洪仁進(主編),教育哲學:方法篇(頁45-76)。學富文化。
周碧惠、郭昭佑(2022)。高等教育全球化之文獻計量分析。高等教育,17(1),47-82。
林天佑(2005)。教育研究倫理準則。教育研究月刊,132,70-86。
林孟煒、洪志成(2022a)。通識英文兼任教師之微觀政治策略與利益。教育研究學報,56 (1),49-82。
林孟煒、洪志成(2022b)。通識英文教師的能動限制:建制俗民誌取向。高等教育,17(1),83-124。
林孟煒、洪志成(2022c)。通識英文教師能動性變化:生態取向觀點。市北教育學刊,70,85-129。
林昱瑄(2012)。建制民族誌作為揭露統治關係的途徑:以大學教師評鑑制度為 例。新批判,1,1-39。
林昱瑄(2018)。追求教學卓越?臺灣高教的表現管理建制研究。臺灣社會學,35,59-107。http://doi:10.6676/TS.201806_(35).03
林倍伊、林顯達、李佩蓉、詹雯靜、洪國財、洪煌堯(2016)。在不同模式的電腦支援協作學習環境下,師培生理解教學理論層次之差異—以Blackboard和Knowledge Forum為例。資訊社會研究,31,71-108。
林清江(1986)。大學教師的角色。師友月刊,233,6-9。http://doi:10.6437/EM.198611.0002
姜添輝(2010)。 影響結構與施為之間互動關係的媒介物: 小學教師的專業認同與文化知覺的分析。臺灣教育社會學研究,10(1),1-43。
施偉隆(2009)。從現象學的觀點對質性研究的省思。新竹教育大學人文學報,2(1),127-152。
洪月女(2019)。大一英文通識課的創新教學實踐:語言表達、多元文化、批判思考的協奏(編號:PGE107082)。教育部教學實踐研究計畫報告。
洪瑞斌、莊騏嘉、陳筱婷(2015)。深思敘說研究之研究倫理議題:回到倫理學基礎探討。生命敘說與心理傳記學,3,55-79。http://doi:10.6512/lnp.2015.03.03
桃樂絲.史密斯(2023)。建制民族誌:使人們發聲的社會學(廖珮如譯)。巨流圖書股份有限公司。(原著出版於2005年)
唐嘉蓉(2011)。英語畢業門檻考試對大學生英語學習的影響。外國語文研究,14,1-24。http://doi:10.30404/FLS.201106_(14).0001
徐筱玲(2019)。深度討論教學法對高層次思考能力成效之研究(編號:107F015205)。教育部教學實踐研究計畫成果報告。
郭姵妤、王增勇(2020)。阿珠上班去:重新看見精神醫療機構化消失的「人」。載於王增勇、梁莉芳(主編),解碼日常生活的權力遊戲(頁137-166)。群學。
鈕文英(2007)。教育研究方法與論文寫作。雙葉書廊。
紐文英(2021)。質性研究方法與論文寫作。雙葉書廊。
馬健君(1996)。共同課程規劃報告。取自http://www.scu.edu.tw/microbio/genera06.htm#gen02
高柏祺、康輔安、高佩倫、胡正申(2015)。外語學習焦慮與人格特質在大學生的英語學習成就的預測力分析。南台人文社會學報,13,79-109。
張芳全(2023)。國中生的家庭社經地位與學習成就差異之研究。學校行政,144,1-28。https://doi.org/10.6423/HHHC.202303_(144).0001
張妙霞(2005)。大學共同英文調查成果報告。《大學英語文課程模式之建構與實踐》。國立臺灣師範大學。
張佳穎、邱垂昱(2008),建立大學教師研究績效指標權重之研究。臺北科技大學學報,41(1),89-106。http://doi:10.29768/JNTUT.200806.0008
張芷瑄、陳斐卿(2020)。教師集體課程創新:轉化能動性概念工具的再探究。課程與教學,23(1),93-116。https://doi.org/10.6384/CIQ.202001_23(1).0004
梁家祺(2009)。臺灣公私立大學通識教育課程規劃現況分析。通識教育與跨域研究,7,79-92。
梁莉芳(2020)。文本作為探究支配關係的中介: 外籍居家看護聘僱需求評估的雙重協作。載於王增勇、梁莉芳(主編),解碼日常生活的權力遊戲(頁337-369)。群學。
莊維貞、陳佳琪(2020)。在堅持「品管」之外-對臺灣私立大學強調英檢畢業門檻的省思。臺灣教育評論月刊,9(9),8-12。
許可依(2020)。家暴社工為什麼要演戲?高危機實務場上的斷裂經驗。載於王增勇、梁莉芳(主編),解碼日常生活的權力遊戲(頁37-76)。群學。
許麗媛(2021)。大學英語課室中的文化課程:以教育部英文課程革新計劃為 例。東吳外語學報,50,13-34。
陳介英(2008)。通識教育與臺灣的大學教育。思與言:人文與社會科學期刊,46(2),1-33。http://doi:10.6431/TWJHSS.200806.0001
陳光興、錢永祥(2005)。新自由主義全球化之下的學術生產。載於反思會議工作小組(主編),全球化與知識生產:反思台灣學術評鑑(頁3-30)。唐山。
陳向明(2002)。教師如何作質的研究。紅葉文化。
陳杏枝、游家政(2015)。核心課程?還是分類選修?:某私立綜 合大學通識教育課程架構改革之研究。教育研究集刊,61(1),69-100。
陳俞余(2013)。行政的追隨者,還是教師的領頭羊—學年主任工作經驗之建制民族誌研究[未出版博士論文]。國立中正大學教育學研究所。
陳彥心(2012)。高苑科技大學大一新生對英語畢業門檻之態度調查。科學與人文研究,1(3),30-43。http://doi:10.6535/JSH.201212_1(3).0003
陳彥心、李銘義(2015)。教師和產業界人士對英語畢業門檻的觀點以一所科技大學為例。教育行政論壇,7(1),74-94。
陳秋蘭(2010)。大學通識英文課程實施現況調查。長庚人文社會學報,3(2),253-274。http://doi:10.30114/CGJHSS.201010.0002
陳婉青、王靖雯(2019)。提升音韻覺識增進英語低成就學習者之口語及識讀表現(編號:PGE107049)。教育部教學實踐研究計畫成果報告。
陳雲卿(2016)。深化基本素養融入通識課程之教學實務研究:以輔英科技大學為例。通識學刊:理念與實務,4(1),37-73。http://doi:10.6427/JGECP.201603_4(1).0002
陳順龍(2020)。透過線上課程—『笑話聽讀講輕鬆學英文』 —重建中低成就學生基礎必備的文法概念(編號:PGE1080010)。教育部教學實踐研究計畫成果報告。
陳慧娥(2014)。公立高中導師工作之建制民族誌研究[未出版碩士論文] 。國立高雄師範大學教育學系。
陳憶如、張惟懽(2016)。英語文能力分級制度對技職校院學生學習成效之影響。嶺東學報,39,231-243。
曾柏文(2015)。後冷戰的高教變遷:歷史脈絡與三組核心問題。載於戴伯芬等編,高教崩壞:市場化、官僚化、與少子女化的危機(頁xiv~xxvii)。群學。
黃俊傑(2006)。臺灣各大學院校通識教育現況: 對於評鑑報告的初步觀察。通識學刊:理念與實務,1(1),183-224。
黃建松(2017)。國中體育教師教學自主權之探究-從傅柯治理性觀點論述[未出版博士論文]。國立臺南大學教育學系課程與教學碩博士班。
黃嘉莉、桑國元、葉碧欣(2020)。十二年國民基本教育課程改革中教師能動性之使動與制約因素:社會結構二元論觀點。課程與教學,23(1),61-92。http:// doi:10.6384/CIQ.202001_23(1).0003
楊立勤、李桂蓮(2014)。從通識英文學習成效看分級制度與教材選擇:以醫學大學大一英文閱讀課程為例。高醫通識教育學報,9,129-164。
楊懿麗(1985)。大一英文教學改革芻議。國立政治大學學報,51,167-184。
溫素美(2011)。私立科技大學四技大一新生英語文能力分級教學成效分析。臺中教育大學學報:人文藝術類,25(2),65-80。
詹盛如(2010)。臺灣高等教育治理政策之改革—新管理主義的觀點。教育資料與研究,94,1-20。
詹盛如(2017)。大學生學習評量政策:大學該有的角色?。評鑑雙月刊,68,30-33。
鄒文莉(2004)。師院生對大一英文課程的期望及其影響變因之關聯性。課程與教學,7(4),59-76。http:// doi:10.6384/CIQ.200410.0059
廖熒虹(2010)。技專校院學生英語畢業門檻之態度初探。國立虎尾科技大學學報,29(3),41-60。http:// doi:10.6425/JNHUST.201009.0041
齊偉先(2020)。建制民族誌「為何」書寫?探索建制民族誌的系譜、方法特質與挑戰。載於王增勇、梁莉芳(主編),解碼日常生活的權力遊戲(頁500-530)。群學。
劉玉玲、謝子陽(2022)。教師能動性與課程負荷現象。臺灣教育評論月刊,11(3),39-44。
潘慧玲(2003)。社會科學研究典範的流變。教育研究資訊,11(1),115-143。
蔡明學、林姿吟(2015)。通識教育課程學習經驗對全人教育實踐認知影響之研究-以某大學為例。高等教育,10(1),101-130。
蔡瑞敏(2019)。培養專業英語閱讀能力與策略:以學習管理平台iClass 與即時反饋系統Kahoot!運用於大一英文課程為例(編號:PGE1080108)。教育部教學實踐研究計畫。
錢景甯、荊行倫、高儷華(2002)。中原大學英語文能力分班政策實證研究。中原學報,30(4),505-516。
戴伯芬(2015)。朝向高等教育的轉型正義。載於戴伯芬等編,高教崩壞:市場化、官僚化、與少子女化的危機(頁320-344)。群學。
戴伯芬、揮塵子(2015)。學術大富翁遊戲—壟斷性的學術生產。載於戴伯芬等編,高教崩壞:市場化、官僚化、與少子女化的危機(頁198-229)。群學。
羅寶鳳、張德勝(2012)。大學教師教學風格與教學自我效能之研究。教育與多元文化研究,6,93-121。
蘇紹雯(2005)。英語畢業門檻相關規定之需求研究:技職大學生的看法。教育學刊,24,47-66。http://doi:10.6450/ER.200506.0047
蘇紹雯(2009)。英語畢業門檻相關規定之研究:南部技職校院英語教師觀點。高雄師大學報:人文與藝術類,27,37-60。
藍佩嘉(2019)。拚教養:全球化、親職焦慮與不平等童年。春山出版。
英文部分
Aizawa, I. & McKinley, J. (2020). EMI challenges in Japan’s internationalization of higher education. In H. Bowles & A. C. Murphy (Eds.), English-Medium Instruction and the Internationalization of Universities (pp. 27-48). Palgrave MacMillan.
Aizawa, I., & Rose, H. (2019). An analysis of Japan’s English as medium of instruction initiatives within higher education: the gap between meso-level policy and micro-level practice. Higher Education, 77(6), 1125-1142.
Ajayan, S.& Balasubramania, S. (2020). “New Managerialism” in higher education: The case of United Arab Emirates. International Journal of Comparative Education and Development, 22 (2), 147-168. https://doi:10.1108/IJCED-11-2019-0054
Angrosino, M., & Rosenberg, J. (2011). Observations on observation: Continuties and challenges. In N. K. Dezin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (467-478). Sage.
Archer, M. (1988). Culture and agency: The place of culture in social theory. Cambridge University Press.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2003). Learning to work creatively with knowledge. In E. D. Corte, L. Vershaffel, N. Entwistle, & J. van Merrinboer (Eds.), Unravelling basic components and dimensions of powerful learning environments (pp. 55-68). European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction. Pergamon.
Biesta, G., & Tedder, M. (2006). How is agency possible? Towards an ecological understanding of agency-as-achievement. Learning Lives: Learning, Identity, and Agency in the Life Course. Working Paper Five, Exeter: Teaching and Learning Research Programme.
Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language learning: A review of research on what language teacher think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36, 81-109. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261444803001903
Borg, S. (2011). The impact of in-service teacher education on language teachers’ beliefs, System, 39, 370-380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.07.009
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of captital. In Richardson, J. (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood.
Bourdieu, P. (1977a). Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In J. Karabel and A.H. Halsey (Eds.), Power and ideology in education (pp. 487-511). Oxford University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1977b). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge University Press.
Bowen, N., Satienchayakorn, N., Teedaaksornsakul, M., & Thomas, N. (2021). Legitimising teacher identity: Investment and agency from an ecological perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 108, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103519.
Brown, H., & Bradford, A. (2018). Teaching subject content through English: CLIL and EMI courses in the Japanese university. In P. Wadden (Ed.), Teaching English at Japanese universities : A new handbook (pp. 103-108). Routledge.
Buchanan, R. (2015). Teacher identity and agency in an era of accountability. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 21(6), 700-719. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/13540602.2015.1044329
Campbell, M. & Gregor, F. (2002). Mapping social relations: A primer in doing Institutional Ethnography. AltaMira Press.
Campbell, M. & Manicom, A. (1995). Introduction. In M. Campbell & A. Manicom (Eds.), Knowledge, experience, and ruling relation: Studies in the social organization of knowledge (pp. 3-17). University of Toronto Press.
Chang, J. (2017). Non-English majors' perceptions regarding freshman English for non-English majors (FENM). Journal of National Kaohsiung University of Science and Technology, 31, 64-87。
Childress, H. (2019). The adjunct underclass: How America’s colleges betrayed their faculty, their students and their mission. University of Chicago Press.
Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. Jossey-Bass.
Conant, J. B. (1950). General education in a free society. Harvard University Press.
Daly, A., Moolenaar, N. M., Boliver, J. M., & Burke, P. (2010). Relationships in reform: The role of teachers’ social networks. Journal of Educational Administration, 48, 359-391.
Dearden, J., & Macaro, E. (2016). Higher education teachers' attitudes towards English medium instruction: A three-country comparison. Studies in second language learning and teaching, 6(3), 455-486.
Deem, R. (1998). New Managerialism and higher Education: The management of
performances and cultures in universities in the United Kingdom. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 8(1), 47-70, https://doi.org/ 10.1080/0962021980020014No.1.
Deem, R. (2000). New Managerialism and the management of UK universities. End of Award Report of an Economic and Social Research Council project (award number: R000237661).
Deem, R., Hillyard, S., & Reed, M. (2007) Knowledge, higher education and the New Managerialism, Oxford University Press.
DeVault, M., & McCoy, L. (2002) Institutional Ethnography: Uning iterviews to
investigate ruling relations. In Gubrium, J. & Holstein, J. (Eds.), Handbook of Interview Research: Context & Method (pp.751-776). Sage.
DeVault, M. (2014). Mapping invisible work: Conceptual tools for social justice projects. Sociological Forum, 29(4), 775-790.
Dobbins, K. (2011). Reflections on SoTL by a casual lecturer: Personal benefits, long-term challenges. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 5(2), Article 24. http://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1309&context=ij-sotl
Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? The American Journal of Sociology, 103, 962-1023.
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Orienta-Konsultit.
Engeström, Y. (2008). Enriching activity theory without shortcuts. Interacting with Computers, 20(2), 256-259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2007.07.003
Foucault, M. (1972). The discourse on language (appendix). In M. Foucault, The Archaeology of Knowledge (pp. 215-237). Pantheon.
Foucault, M. (1981). The order of discourse. In R. Young (Ed.), Untying the text: A postructruralist reader (pp. 51-78). Routeledge.
Gadamer, H. G. (1989). Truth and method. Crossroad.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society outline of the Theory of Structuration. University of California Press.
Giddens, A. (1998). The third way: The renewal of social democracy. Polity Press.
Griffith, A., & Smith, D. (2004). Mothering for schooling. Routledge.
Griffith, A., & Smith, D. (2014). Introduction. In A. Griffith & D. Smith (Eds), Under new public management: Institutional ethnographies of changing front-line work (pp.3-21). University of Toronto Press.
Griffith, A., & Smith, D. (2022). Simply institutional ethonography: Creating a sociology for people. University of Toronto Press.
Harvard Univerity (2023). Harvard college program in general education. Retrieved from https://gened.fas.harvard.edu/urgent-problems-enduring-questions
Hirst, P. (Ed.), Knowledge and the curriculum: A Collection of philosophical papers. Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Hosoki, Y. (2011). English language education in Japan: Transitions and challenges. Kokusai kankeigaku bulletin, 6, 199-215.
Hsieh, C. N. (2017). The case of Taiwan: Perceptions of college students about the use of TOEIC tests as a condition of graduation. ETS Research Report, 1-12 (No. RR17-45).
Hooper, R. I., & Butler, S. (2008). Student transfer of general education English skills to a Social Work diversity course: Is it happening? Journal of the Idaho Academy of Science, 44(2), 1-10.
Huang, S. H., & Yang, L. C. (2020). English for general purposes (EGP) at a Taiwanese university: a mix-methodological analysis of students' perspectives. Tsing Hua Journal of Education and Research, 37(1), 41-83. https://doi:10.6869/THJER.202006_37(1).0002
Hyslop-Margison, E. J., & Leonard, H. A. (2012). Post Neo-Liberalism and the Humanities: What the repressive state apparatus means for universities. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 42(2), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.47678/cjhe.v42i2.183579
Imants, J., & Van der Wal, M. M. (2020). A model of teacher agency in professional development and school reform. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 52(1), 1-14. https://doi:10.1080/00220272.2019.1604809
Jackson, N. (1995). ‘These Things Just Happen’:Talk, Text, and Curriculum Reform. In M. Campbell & A. Manicom (Eds.), Knowledge, experience, and ruling relations: Studies in the social organization of knowledge. Torroto University Press.
Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford university press.
Konopasky, A. W., & Sheridan, K. M. (2016). Towards a diagnostic toolkit for the language of agency. Mind, Culture and Activity, 23(2), 108-123. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/10749039.2015.1128952
Lareau, A. (1987). Social class differences in family-school relationships: The importance of cultural capital. Sociology of education, 60(2), 73-85.
Lee, Y. C. (2010). Parents' perceived roles and home practices in supporting Taiwanese children's English language and literacy learning. English Teaching and Learning, 34(1), 1-53. https://doi.org/10.6330/ETL.2010.34.1.01
Li, Q. (2018). Study on the College English curriculum from the perspective of general education. Theory and Practice in Language Studies,8 (7), 836-840.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2005). Paradigmatic Controversies, Contradictions, and Emerging Confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 191–215). Sage.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
Lorsuwannarat, T. (2014). Autonomy and performance of agentification: Cases of nine independent agencies in Thailand. Journal of US-China Public Administration, 11(10), 797-815.
Lynch, K. (2014). New Managerialism: The impact on education. Concept, 5 (3),
11.
Lynch, K. (2015). Control by numbers: new managerialism and ranking in higher education. Critical Studies in Education, 56 (2), 190-207.
MacCarthaigh, M. (2012). From agencification to de-agencification: the changing bureaucratic model. In O’Malley, E. and MacCarthaigh, M. (Eds), Governing Ireland: From cabinet government to delegated governance (pp. 128-151). Institute of Public Administration.
McCoy, L. (1999). Accounting discourse and textual practices of ruling: A study of institutional transformation and resrructing in higher education. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Toronto. Retrived from https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/12792/1/NQ45788.pdf
McCoy, L. (2006). Keeping the institution in view: Working with interview accounts of everyday experience. In D. Smith (Ed.), Institutional ethnography as practice (pp. 109-126). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2001). Research in education: A conceptual introduction (5th ed.). Longman.
Mishra, L. Gupta, T., & Shree, A. (2020). Online teaching-learning in higher
education during lockdown period of COVID-19 pandemic. International
Journal of Educational Research Open, 1, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2020.100012
Morrow, S. L. (2005). Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 250. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.250
Nishino, T. (2012). Modeling teacher belief and practices in context: A multi-methods approach. The Modern Language Journal, 96, 380-399.
Nickson, A. (2014). A qualitative case study exploring the nature of New Managerialism in UK higher education and its impact on individual academics’ experience of doing research. The Journal of Research Administration, 45(1), 47-80.
Ntshoe, I., Higgs, P., Higgs, L., & Wolhuter, C. (2008). The changing academic profession in higher education and new managerialism and corporatism in South Africa. SAJHE, 22(2), 391–403.
Pollitt, C., Talbot, C., Caulfield, J., & Smullen, A. (2004). Agencies: How governments do things through semi-autonomous organizations. Springer.
Popkewitz, T. S. (1987). Ideology and social formation in teacher education. In T. S.
Popkewitz (Ed.), Critical studies in teacher education: Its folklore, theory and
practice (pp. 2-35). Falmer Press.
Priestley, M., Edwards, R., Priestley, A., & Miller, K. (2012). Teacher agency in curriculum making: Agents of change and spaces for manoeuvre. Curriculum Inquiry, 42(2), 191-214. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-873X.2012.00588.x
Priestley, M, Biesta, G., & Robinson, S. (2015). Teacher agency: An ecological approach. Bloomsbury Academic.
Rich, K. M. (2020). Examining agency as teachers use mathematics curriculum resources: How professional contexts may support or inhibit student-centered instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 98, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103249
Rajprasit, K. (2021). ‘Do as we do’: Teaching world Englishes in a general English course to Thai students. RELC Journal, June 2021. https://doi:10.1177/00336882211011276
Rankin, J. (2017). Conducting analysis in Institutional Ethnography: Guidance and cautions. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917734472
Rigby, K. A. (2021). Evolution and impact of English language policy in Taiwan. [Master Honors Theses]. The University of Messissippi. https://egrove.olemiss.edu/hon_thesis/1732
Salomon, G. (1992). The changing role of the teacher: Form information transmitter to orchestrator of teaching, In F. K. Oser, A. Dick, & J-L. Patry (Eds.), Effective and responsible teaching: The new synthesis (pp. 37-49). Jossey-Bass.
Seidlhofer, B. (2001). Closing a conceptual gap: The case for a description of English as a lingua franca. International journal of applied linguistics, 11(2), 133-158.
Severance, S., Penuel, W. R., Sumner, T., & Leary, H. (2016). Organizing for teacher agency in curricular co-design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(4), 531-564. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2016.1207541
Spradley, J. P. (1980). Praticipant observation. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
Smith, D. E. (1987). The everyday world as problematic: A feminist sociology. University of Toronto Press.
Smith, D. E. (1990a). The conceptual practices of power. University of
Toronto Press.
Smith, D. E. (1990b). Texts, facts, and femininity: Exploring the relation of ruling.
Routledge.
Smith, D. E. (2002). Institutional ethnography. In T. May (Ed.), Qualitative
research in action (pp. 17-52). Sage.
Smith, D. E. (2005). Institutional ethnography: A sociology for people. Rowman
Altamira.
Smith, D. E. (2006). Incorporating texts into ethnographic practice. In D. E.
Smith (Ed.), Institutional ethnography as practice (pp. 65-88). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Smith, D. E. (2007). Making change from below. Social Studies, 3(2), 7-30.
Stanley, W. B. (1992). Curriculum for Utopia: Social reconstructionism and critical
pedagogy in the postmodern era. State University of New York
Press.
Stone, P., & Lovejoy, M. (2019). Opting back in: What really happens when mothers go back to work. University of California Press.
Song, Y., & Looi, C -K. (2012). Linking teacher belief, practices, and student inquiry-based learning in a CSCL environment: A tale of two teachers. International Journal of Computer-supported Collaborative Learning, 7, 129-159.
Su, S. W. (2010). English placement practice and instruction: A needs analysis from the perspective of technological university students. Kaohsiung Normal University Journal: Humanities and Arts, 29, 1-27. https://doi:10.7060/KNUJ-HA.201012.0001
Tao, J., & Gao, X. (2017). Teacher agency and identity commitment in curricular reform. Teaching and Teacher Education. 63, 346-355. https:// doi.10.1016/j.tate.2017.01.010
Toom, A., Pyhältö, K., & Rust, F. O. (2015). Teachers’ professional agency in contradictory times. Teachers and Teaching, 21(6), 615-623. https://doi.10.1080/13540602.2015.1044334
Tutty, L, Bidgood, B., & Rothery, M. (1996). The impact of group process and client variables in support groups for battered women. Research on Social Work Practice, 6(3), 308-324. https://doi: 10.1177/104973159600600303
Vassallo, M. L., & Telles, J. A. (2006). Foreign language learning in-tandem: Theoretical principles and research perspectives. The especialist, 27(1), 83-118.
Vähäsantanen, K (2015). Professional agency in the stream of change: Understanding educational change and teachers' professional identities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 47, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.11.006.
Verhoest, K. (2018). Agencification in Europe. In: Ongaro, E., Van Thiel, S. (Eds), The Palgrave handbook of public administration and management in Europe, (pp. 327-346). Palgrave Macmillan.
Warren, L. D. (2001). Organizaing creation: The role of musical text. Studies in Cultural, Organizations and Societies, 7(2), 327-352.
Wettenhall, R. (2005). Agencies and non-departmental public bodies: The hard and soft lenses of agencification theory. Public Management Review, 7(4), 615-635.
White, C. (2007). Innovation and identity in distance language learning and
Teaching. International Journal of Innovation in Language Learning and
Teaching, 1(1), 97-110.
Wright, S. (2014). Knowledge that counts: Points systems and the governance of
Danish universities. In A. Griffith & D. Smith, (Eds.), Under new public management: Institutional ethnographies of changing front-line work (pp. 294-337). University of Toronto Press.
Wright, J. S., & Turner, S. (2021). Integrated care and the ‘agentification’of the English national health service. Social Policy & Administration, 55(1), 173-190.
Yulian, R. (2022). Developing augmented reality (AR) as assisted technology in reading based on content-language integrated learning. JTP-Jurnal Teknologi Pendidikan, 24(1), 23-37.

網路資源
ETS臺灣區總代理(2021)。2021年臺灣中大型企業及求職者外語職能管理調查報告。取自 https://www.toeic.com.tw/info/reports/company-survey/2021/
www.edu.tw/userfiles/url/20120921102842/a931022.doc
行政院(2002)。挑戰2008:e世代人才培育計畫。取自 http://www.wpeiic.ncku.edu.tw/law/%E6%8C%91%E6%88%B02008.pdf
何萬順(2018年1月23日)。政大為什麼廢除英語畢業門檻?。獨立評論。https://opinion.cw.com.tw/blog/profile/351/article/6552
阮孝齊(2019)。面對高等教育全球化教育之挑戰及因應策略。國家教育研究院電子報,190。取自https://epaper.naer.edu.tw/edm.php?grp_no=3&edm_no=190&content_no=3390
許棠詠(2022年7月22日)。教育部教學實踐研究計畫 銘傳大學通過50件全國第一。銘傳一週。 https://www.week.mcu.edu.tw/42783/
第六屆 21 世紀的公共管理:機遇與挑戰國際學術研討會(2014年10月16日-2014年10月17日)。大會議程 。取自https://www.um.edu.mo/fss/pa/6th_conference/conference.pdf
陳淑敏(2022-2026)(四年期)。分項2-1:通識教育教師教學知能培力計畫。教育部提升大學通識教育中程計畫。取自https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwFbLu8F0e0
陳夢茹(2022年9月20日)。教育部教學實踐研究計畫 桃園龍華科大至今獲88件補助。中時新聞網。取自https://www.chinatimes.com/realtimenews/20220922004518-260421?chdtv
詹中原(2014)。考試院 103 年度文官制度出國考察 泰國考察報告。取自https://ws.exam.gov.tw/Download.ashx?u=LzAwMS9VcGxvYWQvMS9yZWxmaWxlLzEyMDgyLzI4MzY3LzQzY2YwYWE0LTZlYjQtNDE1MS1iMTYyLWQ5OGI0Y2UzMGZkMS5wZGY%3D&n=NTIyNDEwMjA0NzEucGRm&icon=.pdf
國立臺灣大學共同教育中心(2021)。國立臺灣大學通識課程與基本能力課程實施辦法。取自https://cge.ntu.edu.tw/001/Upload/1022/ckfile/02ba10e8-ceeb-40c8-9d83-58f08b48b3d8.pdf
國立臺灣大學學生會(2021)。大學國文改通識。取自https://www.facebook.com/NTUSA/posts/4355582291129572/
國立臺灣大學學生會學權部(2023)。臺大學生會雙語政策學權議題展 文章回顧系列(一)大一英文必修英文怎麼看?取自https://www.facebook.com/NTUSAstudentrights/photos/a.444022495657090/6023380397721244/
國家科學技術及委員會(2022)。國家科學及技術委員會對研究人員學術倫理規範。取自 https://www.nstc.gov.tw/nstc/attachments/529f05c2-7732-4f02-9c03-803a04bddedf?
國家發展委員會(2018)。2030 雙語國家政策發展藍圖。取自 https://www.ey.gov.tw/Page/448DE008087A1971/b7a931c4-c902-4992-a00c-7d1b87f46cea
國家發展委員會(2022)。雙語政策與國家語言並重,給下一代更好的未來。取自 https://www.ndc.gov.tw/nc_27_35685
教育部(2004)。未來四年施政主軸行動方案。取自 https://ap2.pccu.edu.tw/selfevaluate/html/info-docs/3_%E5%8F%83%E8%80%83%E8%B3%87%E8%A8%8A/%E6%95%99%E8%82%B2%E9%83%A8%E6%96%BD%E6%94%BF%E7%90%86%E5%BF%B5%E8%88%87%E6%9C%AA%E4%BE%86%E5%9B%9B%E5%B9%B4%E6%96%BD%E6%94%BF%E4%B8%BB%E8%BB%B8%E6%9E%B6%E6%A7%8B/32_2005-2008%E6%95%99%E8%82%B2%E9%83%A8%E6%95%99%E8%82%B2%E6%96%BD%E6%94%BF%E4%B8%BB%E8%BB%B8%EF%BC%8D%E8%A1%8C%E5%8B%95%E6%96%B9%E6%A1%88931021.doc
教育部(2016)。多元文化語境之英文學習革新計畫。取自https://data.gov.tw/dataset/32273
教育部(2016)。臺高教(二)第1050111306號函。取自 https://query.ey.gov.tw/legisWeb/webQuery.aspx?sys=630&funid=lgresult&term=9&srltype=1&subnm=%E5%A4%A7%E5%AD%B8%E5%8F%8A%E7%A0%94%E7%A9%B6%E6%89%80%E6%95%99%E8%82%B2&job=50101&currec=3&totrec=12
教育部(2017)。計畫說明。取自大專校院教學實踐研究計畫https://tpr.moe.edu.tw/plan
教育部(2018a)。全面啟動教育體系的雙語活化、培養臺灣走向世界的雙語人才。取自https://www.edu.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=9E7AC85F1954DDA8&s=B7D34EA3ED606429
教育部(2018b)。大專校院教學實踐研究計畫。取自https://tpr.moe.edu.tw/
教育部(2021a)。大專校院教學實踐研究計畫年度報告。取自https://tpr.moe.edu.tw/news
教育部(2021b)。大專校院雙語化學習計畫。取自 https://best.twaea.org.tw/download.html
教育部(2023)。大專校院雙語化學習計畫(更新)。取自 https://best.twaea.org.tw/download.html
楊國揚(2013)。建構完善的教科書審定機制,提升整體教學、學習效益。取自:https://epaper.naer.edu.tw/print.php?edm_no=58&content_no=1611
葉嘉敏(2021)。台大學生會提案廢除國文必修改為通識失敗,你如何看大學國文教育之必要?端傳媒。取自https://theinitium.com/roundtable/20210618-roundtable-tw-chinese-class-elective/
鄒文莉(2009)。改造大學英語課程─國立成功大學專業英語教學計畫。取自https://teaching.ndhu.edu.tw/files/16-1095-34653.php
蔡家蓁(2021年7月14日)。辦學獲肯定金大連續4年獲教育部教學實踐計畫補助。聯合報。取自https://udn.com/news/story/7327/5601692

 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
QR Code
QRCODE