:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:以議題中心教學探究護生在「生命的可改變性」議題之論證判斷內涵
書刊名:護理暨健康照護研究
作者:歐姿妤 引用關係黃貞觀楊克平
作者(外文):Ou, Tzu-yuHuang, Chen-kuanYang, Ke-ping
出版日期:2011
卷期:7:4
頁次:頁255-265
主題關鍵詞:生命教育論證議題中心學習Life educationArgumentation processIssues-centered learning
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:77
  • 點閱點閱:46
背景 : 探究生命意義的課程若能成為「愛惜自己、尊重他人」的價值活動,讓彼此擁有豐富的生命涵養及實踐能力,才是生命教育最大的目的。 目的 : 本研究旨在藉由探究護生對生命的可改變性觀點,期望獲致其論證判斷內涵。 方法 : 研究對象為新北市某專科學校修讀「健康與護理」課程之護理科 295名學生,經議題中心教學後,以議題論證半結構式問卷收集資料。 結果 :結果發現大部分學生認同生命可改變性,但也有 37位學生(佔 12.54%)持反對及其他意見。學生對「生命的可改變性」之論證內涵包括宿命論、悲觀主義、活在當下及生命無盡藏等四個主題,其中在「生命無盡藏」主題中最想改變的對象或事件大都與自身經歷有關,其次才是家人及朋友之生命經驗。 結論/實務應用 : 本研究依據結果提出相關建議,可為學校及教師在實施生命教育相關課程時之參考。
Background: The ultimate goal of life education is to cultivate life content and develop the competence to practice and explore the meaning of life as “love yourself and respect others.” Purpose: This study used life changeability teaching methods to pinpoint the content of the adolescent argumentation process. Methods: Study participants included 295 nursing students enrolled in a health and care course at a nursing college. Students filled out a semi-structured questionnaire after the completion of issues-centered teaching. Results: Most participants agreed that life could be changed. A minority of 37 students (12.54%) disagreed or expressed another opinion. Students evaluated themselves in terms of an argumentation process designed to identify principal factors influencing decision making. The four factor themes identified were: fatalism, pessimism, living in the present and endless life. Under the endless life theme, events connected with a person’s own life experiences would be changed first followed by the life experiences of family and friends. Conclusions/Implications for Practice: Findings shed light on life education and may serve as a reference for schools and teachers responsible to design / teach life education courses.
期刊論文
1.Rossi, J. A.、Pace, C. M.(1998)。Issues-centered instruction with low achieving, high school students: the dilemmas of two teachers。Theory and Research in Social Education,26(3),380-409。  new window
2.張秀雄(20031000)。議題中心課程模式在九年一貫課程「社會學習領域」的應用。公民訓育學報,14,15-35。new window  延伸查詢new window
3.Erduran, S.、Osborne, J.、Simon, S.(2006)。Learning to Teach Argumentation: Research and Development in the Science Classroom。International Journal of Science Education,28(2/3),235-260。  new window
4.劉湘瑤、李麗菁、蔡今中(20070600)。科學認識觀與社會性科學議題抉擇判斷之相關性探討。科學教育學刊,15(3),335-356。new window  延伸查詢new window
5.董秀蘭(19980800)。議題中心教學法在國中法治教育課程的應用--結構性爭論模式的實例。人文及社會學科教學通訊,9(2)=50,53-64。  延伸查詢new window
6.劉美慧(19980600)。議題中心教學法的理論與實際。花蓮師院學報,8,173-199。new window  延伸查詢new window
7.陳密桃(19960600)。我國臺灣地區國中學生批判思考的相關因素及其教學效果之分析研究。教育學刊,12,71-148。new window  延伸查詢new window
8.陳玉枝(20101000)。護理人員應具備的專業核心能力。護理雜誌,57(5),12-17。new window  延伸查詢new window
9.Waks, Leonard J.(1992)。The responsibility spiral: A curriculum framework for STS education。Theory into Practice,31(1),13-19。  new window
10.黃志豪、劉惠元(20080600)。議題中心教學法之結構性爭論模式應用於國小環境教育之研究。臺中教育大學學報. 教育類,22(1),21-50。new window  延伸查詢new window
會議論文
1.吳庶深、詹文克(2009)。生命教育的推動與創新教學範例分析。臺北:國立臺北教育大學生命教育與健康促進研究所。229-230。  延伸查詢new window
圖書
1.Frankl, Viktor E.(1986)。The doctor and the soul: From psychotherapy to logotherapy。New York, NY:Vintage Books。  new window
2.林清山(1992)。心理與教育統計學。東華書局。  延伸查詢new window
3.Lincoln, Yvonna S.、Guba, Egon G.(1985)。Naturalistic Inquiry。Sage。  new window
4.Dewey, John(1933)。How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process。D. C. Heath and Company。  new window
5.Toulmin, Stephen Edelston(1958)。The Uses of Argument。Cambridge University Press。  new window
其他
1.孫效智(Sun, H. C.)(2006)。高中生命教育類選修課程師資培育計畫第一期成果發表會手冊(First phase results: Educator training program for high school-level life education elective courses),臺北市:國立臺灣大學師資培育中心。  延伸查詢new window
2.陳薇婷、張若蘭、陳蔓穎、何君麗、王玉琪、黃玉等著(Chen, W. T., Chang, R. L., Chen, M. Y., Ho, J. L., Wang, Y. Q., Huang, Y., et al)(2007)。健康與護理IV(Health and nursing IV),臺北市:泰宇。  延伸查詢new window
3.趙中建(Zhao, Z. J.)(1995)。教學模式(Teaching model),臺北市:五南圖書。  延伸查詢new window
4.蕭宏恩(Hsiao, H. E.)(2000)。護理照護的根本關懷(The fundamental concerns of nursing care)。  延伸查詢new window
5.蘇惠明、黃瑞美(Su, W. M., & Huang, J. M.)(2000)。應用於臨床推理的批判思考策略(Critical thinking strategies involved in clinical reasoning)。  延伸查詢new window
6.J. S. Carroll & E. J. Johnson(1990)。Decision research,Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage。  new window
7.D. W. Johnson, R. T. Johnson & K. A. Smith(1991)。Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom. Edina,MN:Interactin Book。  new window
8.Lee, Y. C.(2007)。Developing decision-making skills for socioscientific issues。  new window
9.C. Moran & L. Hughes(2006)。Coping with stress: Social work students and humour。  new window
10.S. Moutier S. Plagne-Cayeux, A. M. Melot & O. Houde(2006)。Syllogistic reasoning and belief-bias inhibition in school children: Evidence from a negative priming paradigm。  new window
11.J. Osborne, S. Erduran, & S. Simon(2004)。Enhancing the quality of argument in school science。  new window
12.X. Xie, F. Lin & T. Zhang(2001)。Comparison between onand off-campus behaviour and adaptability in online learning: A case from China。  new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE