:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:科技大學英文教師教學風格、師生互動、學生學習投入與學習自我效能關係之研究
作者:楊致慧 引用關係
作者(外文):Chih-Hui Yang
校院名稱:國立高雄師範大學
系所名稱:成人教育研究所
指導教授:蔡培村
學位類別:博士
出版日期:2013
主題關鍵詞:教學風格師生互動學習投入學習自我效能Teaching stylesTeacher-student interactionLearning engagementlearning self-efficacy
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(7) 博士論文(1) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:7
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:232
論文摘要
本研究旨在探究科技大學英文教師教學風格、師生互動、學生學習投入與學習自我效能之間的關係,研究目的包括:瞭解科技大學學生所知覺英文教師教學風格、師生互動、學習投入與學習自我效能之現況;探討不同背景變項之科技大學學生所知覺英文教師教學風格、師生互動、學習投入與學習自我效能之差異性;分析科技大學學生所知覺英文教師教學風格、師生互動、學習投入與學習自我效能之相關性;探討科技大學學生所知覺英文教師教學風格、師生互動、學習投入對學習自我效能之預測力;建構英文教師教學風格、師生互動、學習投入與學習自我效能之結構模式,並根據模式建構的研究成果,提供具體建議供教育工作者實務應用與未來相關研究之參考。
本研究之研究對象為1,051位南部地區科技大學日間部四技一年級學生,研究工具為研究者自編之「科技大學學生英文學習經驗量表」,量表經過信、效度分析後進行正式施測,並透過t考驗、單因子變異數分析、皮爾森積差相關分析、典型相關、逐步迴歸分析、結構方程模式等統計分析方法進行資料分析,所得結論如下:
一、 科技大學學生所知覺的英文教師教學風格以「師生合作型」最多;師生互動程度中等;學習投入程度中高;學習自我效能程度中等。
二、 男生在教學風格知覺上比女生更傾向「學生中心型」;女生在師生互動、學習投入的程度比男生高。
三、 公立學校學生在教學風格知覺上比私立學校學生更傾向「學生中心型」;師生互動、學習投入、學習自我效能的知覺也比私立學校學生高。
四、 人文社會學科學生在教學風格知覺上低於其他學科學生;商業管理、藥理生技學科學生在師生互動、學習投入上的程度較高;商業管理學科學生之學習自我效能程度較高。
五、 學業成績為高分組、知覺「學生中心型」之學生在師生互動、學習投入、學習自我效能上的程度最高。
六、 男性教師教學風格比女性教師更傾向「學生中心型」,學生學習投入亦比女性教師高;兼任教師的師生互動程度比專任教師高。
七、 教學風格愈傾向「學生中心型」、師生互動、學生學習投入愈高、學習自我效能就會愈提昇;教學風格、師生互動、學習投入透過兩組典型變量對學習自我效能產生正向影響。
八、 學習投入中的「認知投入」對學習自我效能整體及各層面最具預測力。
九、 教學風格、師生互動、學生學習投入對學習自我效能有顯著影響效果;師生互動與學習投入是教學風格影響學習自我效能的重要中介因素。
十、 教學風格、師生互動、學生學習投入與學習自我效能的結構方程模式適配度良好。
本研究發現,不同背景變項學生在教學風格知覺、師生互動、學習投入與學習自我效能上有顯著差異;教學風格、師生互動、學生學習投入對學習自我效能有顯著的正向影響效果,此研究結果可作為科技大學英文課程設計與教學實務的重要參考。
關鍵詞:教學風格、師生互動、學習投入、學習自我效能
Abstract
The study explores the relationship of technology university English teachers’ teaching styles, teacher-student interaction, students’ learning engagement and learning self-efficacy. The main purposes are to understand the current situation of technology university English teachers’ teaching styles as perceived by students, teacher-student interaction, students’ learning engagement and learning self-efficacy; to investigate if there are significant differences among students with different backgrounds on their perception of English teachers’ teaching styles, teacher-student interaction, learning engagement and learning self-efficacy; to measure the correlation between each two variables and canonical correlation between two sets of variables; to explore which independent variables (teaching styles, teacher-student interaction, students’ learning engagement) can be the predictors of the dependent variables (learning self-efficacy); to construct the exploratory modeling and to provide pedagogical and theoretical suggestions for educators and researchers based on the findings.
The subjects were 1,051 freshmen at the day-time division of technology universities in southern Taiwan. The instrument was the questionnaire designed by the researcher and the reliability and the validity of the questionnaire were evaluated. The data collected was analyzed by the statistical analysis: t-test, One-way ANOVA, Pearson product-moment correlation and canonical correlation analysis, stepwise regression analysis and SEM. The findings of this study are as follows:
1. According to the perception of students, English teachers are more likely to demonstrate the “teacher-student cooperative style”; the teacher-student interaction is at the medium level; the students’ learning engagement reaches the medium-high level; and the students’ learning self-efficacy is at the medium level.
2. Male students’ perception of their English teachers’ teaching styles inclines to be the “student-centered style” more than the female students, and female students reported higher levels of teacher-student interaction and learning engagement than the male students.
3. Public school students’ perception of their English teachers’ teaching styles leans more to the “student-centered style” than the private school students, and public school students have more teacher-student interaction, learning engagement and learning self-efficacy than private school students.
4. The humanities/social science major students have a lower level of the perception of English teachers’ teaching styles than students with other majors; Business/management and health/biotechnology major students reportedly have higher levels of teacher-student interaction and learning engagement; Business/management major students possess higher level of learning self-efficacy.
5. The students with high achievement in English and those perceiving the “student-centered style” possess the highest levels of teacher-student interaction, learning engagement and learning self-efficacy.
6. Male teachers’ teaching styles are perceived as being more “student-centered style” than female teachers; male teachers’ students have a higher level of learning engagement than female teachers’ students; and part-time teachers demonstrate more teacher-student interaction than full-time teachers, according to the respondants.
7. The level of English teachers’ teaching styles leans more to the “student-centered style”, the levels of teacher-student interaction, students’ learning engagement and learning self-efficacy are higher; the teachers’ teaching styles, teacher-student interaction and students’ learning engagement have positive effects on learning self-efficacy through two canonical variates.
8. Cognitive engagement is the most predictable variable of learning self-efficacy.
9. English Teachers’ teaching styles, teacher-student interaction and students’ learning engagement have significant effects on learning self-efficacy, as teacher-student interaction and learning engagement are the intervening variables.
10. The model constructed in this study has the perfect fit.
Based on the conclusions of this study, it was found that there are significant differences among students with different backgrounds on their perception of English teachers’ teaching styles, teacher-student interaction, learning engagement and learning self-efficacy. Teaching styles, teacher-student interaction and students’ learning engagement have significant positive effects on learning self-efficacy. These findings can have pedagogical implications and serve as a reference for English educators at technology universities in curriculum design.
Keywords: teaching styles, teacher-student interaction, learning engagement, learning self-efficacy.
參考文獻
壹、中文部份
方德隆(1998)。班級社會體系。載於陳奎熹(主編),現代教育社會學,(139-177頁)。台北:師大書苑。
王俊傑(2011)。台灣國中生英語自我效能、英語閱讀策略及英語閱讀成就之相關研究(未出版之碩士論文)。銘傳大學,台北市。
王家健(2011)。淡江大學學生學習投入與學習信心之關係研究(未出版之碩士論文)。淡江大學,新北市。
王淑俐、單文經、黃德祥(1996)。師生關係與班級經營。台北:三民。
石文宜(2006)。國中生人格特質、師生互動關係與偏差行為之關係(未出版之碩士論文)。國立政治大學,台北市。
行政院(2005)。挑戰2008:國家發展重點計畫(2002-2007)。取自http://www.cepd.gov.tw/m1.aspx?sNo=0001568&ex=1&ic=0000015
余淑卿(2011)。國中生知覺數學教師教學風格、數學學業情緒與數學學業成就之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺南大學,台南市。new window
吳秀梅(2002)。大學成人教師教學型態及其相關因素之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立中正大學,嘉義縣。
吳怡靜、何琦瑜(2007年6月)。英語力敲開全球化大門。天下雜誌。取自http://www.cw.com.tw/article/article.action?id=3068
吳明隆(2008)。SPSS操作與應用:多變量分析實務。臺北市:五南。
吳明隆(2009a)。結構方程模式:AMOS的操作與應用。臺北市:五南。
吳明隆(2009b)。SPSS操作與應用:問卷統計分析實務。台北市:五南
吳明隆(2010a)。SPSS操作與應用:變異數分析實務。臺北市:五南。
吳明隆(2010b)。結構方程模式:實務應用秘笈。臺北市:五南。
吳青蓉(2004)。知情意整合的語言學習策略對國中生英語學習表現影響之研究。國立臺北師範學院學報,17(1),227-249。new window
吳淑娟(2009)。國中生知覺父母管教方式、英語學業情緒與英語學業成就之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立台南大學,台南市。
吳雅玲(2004)。幼稚園英語課堂師生互動之個案研究(未出版之博士論文)。國立高雄師範大學,高雄市。new window
吳嘉賢(2002)。國小教師對學校學習型組織特性覺知與教學型態關係之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立中正大學,嘉義縣。
吳靜吉、程炳林(1992)。激勵的學習策略量表之修訂。測驗年刊,39,59-78。new window
吳瓊洳(2007)。國小英語課堂教學中的同儕互動研究。新竹教育大學教育學報,24(2),27-60。new window
李宗謙(2007)。合作學習對國小學生英語學習動機、自我效能及口語表現之探究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立高雄師範大學,高雄市。
李宜娗(2009)。國中教師期望、教室目標結構、成就目標與課業投入之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立彰化師範大學,彰化縣。
李俊儀(2003)。後期中等學校工業類學生對教師教學風格與教學效能之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立雲林科技大學,雲林縣。
李秋娟(2011)。國小學童數學課室目標結構、家庭教養方式與學習投入及學業成就之關係研究(未出版之碩士論文)。東海大學,台中市。

李淑梅(2011)。探討馬來西亞華文獨立中學學生知覺教師人格特質、教學風格與學生學業自我效能之關係(未出版之碩士論文)。國立彰化師範大學,彰化縣。
周子敬(2008)台灣地區大專院校學生課程投入量表之探討。智慧科技與應用統計學報,6(2)173 -188。
周金玲(2011)。國小教師班級經營對學生學習成就影響之研究-以學習投入為中介變數(未出版之碩士論文)。大葉大學,彰化縣。
周啟葶(2007)。高中生英語自我效能、英語學習焦慮、英語學習策略與英語學習成就關係之研究(未出版之博士論文)。國立台灣師範大學,台北市。new window
周淑蕙(2009)。國小高年級學生英語學習策略與英語自我效能關係之探究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立高雄師範大學,高雄市。
周燦德(2008)。師生關係理論及實徵研究分析。教育研究月刊,166,80-91。new window
林生傳(1988)。新教學理論與策略。台北市:五南圖書出版公司。
林哲立(2010)。教師支持對學生需求滿足與學習投入之影響 - 以台灣地區高中學生為例(未出版之博士論文)。國立政治大學,台北市。new window
林淑惠、黃韞臻(2009)。大專院校學生英語學習現況與學習環境之分析。台中教育大學學報,23(1),153-173。new window
林淑惠、黃韞臻(2012)。中部大學生學習投入與學習倦怠之分析。輔導與諮商學報,34(1),51-67。new window
林裕仁(2011)。論證教學之有經驗與生手教師的教學設計、師生互動與教學成效(未出版之博士論文)。國立高雄師範大學,高雄市。
林維真(2008)。學生學習風格、教師教學風與英語科學習成效之關係研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立屏東科技大學,屏東縣。
林慧洙(2011)。技專院校學生學習動機、自我效能與英文能力之相關研究:以英文閱讀焦慮為中介變項(未出版之博士論文)。國立彰化師範大學,彰化縣。
林瓊瑤(2002)。英語科學習動機調整訓練團體對高中生自我效能、學習動機及課業成就之影響(未出版之碩士論文)。國立彰化師範大學,彰化縣。
侯春秀(2008)。學習和教學風格異同與英語學習成就關係之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。雲林科技大學,雲林縣。
姜琇籃(2006)性別差異與教室互動:以科技大學英語教室為例之個案研究(未出版之碩士論文)。南台科技大學,台南市。
施淑津(2012)。國中學生學習興趣、教師激勵風格、班級學習氣氛與學習投入之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。大葉大學,彰化縣。
施淑慎(2008)。學習情境中之自主支持與國中生成就相關歷程間關係之探討。國立政治大學教育與心理研究,31,1-26。new window
胡綺祐(2011)。國中生主觀控制知覺、自主性與學習投入之關係研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立彰化師範大學,彰化縣。
范傳馨(2002)。德語會話課師生互動研究—以輔大德語系會話課為例(未出版之碩士論文)。輔仁大學,台北市。
英國文化協會。(2010年7月)。IELT雅思英語測驗全球排名,台灣微幅領先中。取自http://www.britishcouncil.org/tw/tw-about-us-press-room-ielts-ranking.pdf。
孫志麟(2009)。建立信心:教師自我效能七部曲。臺北:學富文化事業有限公司。
孫旻儀、石文宜、王鍾和(2007)。國中學生人格特質與師生互動關係之研究。彰師諮商與輔導學報,29(2),51-72。

袁麗卿(2006)。英語學習策略輔導方案對國小英語科低成就學生之學習表現、學習策略運用及自我效能之影響(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺北教育大學,台北市。
財團法人語言測驗中心(2004)。教育部技專院校英語能力檢測計畫 – 92學年度英語能力檢測成績統計報告。取自 http://www.lttc.ntu.edu.tw/research/92技專英檢成績統計報告本文.pdf
高薰芳、王家健(2010年11月)。大學學生學習投入與學習信心關係之研究。2010卓越教學學術研討會,慈濟大學。
張介南(2004)。台灣中學地理教學風格的研究(未出版之博士論文)。中國文化大學,台北市。new window
張春興(1999)。現代心理學。台北:東華出版社。
張春興(2000)。張氏心理學辭典。台北:東華書局。
張春興、林清山(1988)。教育心理學。台北:東華書局。
張淑筵(2004)。英語學習策略教學對國中生的學習表現與自我效能之影響(未出版之碩士論文)。慈濟大學,花蓮市。
張景媛(1987)。個人處事之分類及有關研究。測驗與輔導,83,1601-1604。
張菀珍(1996)。大臺北區成人職業進修班教師教學型態及其相關因素之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立台灣師範大學,台北市。
張鈿富(2012)。大學生學習投入理論與評量實務之探討。高教評鑑【中文特刊】,41-62。new window
張鈿富、林松柏、周文菁(2012)。台灣高中生學生學習投入影響因素之研究。教育資料集刊,54,23-57。new window

張瓊文(2011)。高中生知覺英語教師教學風格、學習自主、自我效能與學習成就之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立彰化師範大學,彰化縣。
教育部(2007)。主題報導。【教育部電子報,第241期】。取自http://epaper.edu.tw/e9617_epaper/foreword.aspx?period_num=241
教育部(2013)。101學年度大專校院各校科系學生數。取自https://stats.moe.gov.tw/files/detail/101/101_students.xls。
莊雅婷(2010)。國小高年級學生自我調整與數學教室中師生互動關係之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立東華大學,花蓮市。
許淑華(2002)。國民小學級任教師教學風格與班級氣氛之相關研究(未出版之碩士論文)。台中師範學院,台中市。
許德發(2000)。專科學生對科學的態度、生物學科自我效能與其營養健康信念表徵、學業成就之關係研究(未出版之博士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學,台北市。new window
郭庭芳(2011)。國民小學學童知覺教師人格特質、班級氣氛與學習投入之相關研究。教育研究論壇,2(2),47-68.new window
陳宜嬪(2009)。兩岸小學生語文學習自我效能感之比較-以馬祖與福州各一所小學為例(未出版之碩士論文)。銘傳大學,台北市。
陳奎熹(1989)。教育社會學研究。台北:師大書苑。
陳奎憙(1996)。師生關係的性質。載於陳奎憙、王淑俐、單文經、黃德祥(主編),師生關係與班級經營(3-49頁)。台北:三民。
陳祖達(2011)。導師僕人式領導對師生互動關係有正向影響(未出版之碩士論文)。南台科技大學,台南市。
陳國蕙(2009)。案例教學法的學習成效及其中介變項之研究(未出版之博士論文)。國立嘉義大學,嘉義市。new window
陳婉玉(2010)。國小英語分組與能力高低對學生的學習動機與學習投入之調節效果(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺北教育大學,台北市。
陳莉君(2009)。臺北縣新移民子女知覺教師教學風格對學生學習適應之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立台北教育大學,台北市。
陳雪玉(2002)。國民小學補習學校教師內外控信念、角色知覺與教學型態關係的研究(未出版之博士論文)。國立政治大學,台北市。new window
陳惠珍(2010)。國中生對任課老師自主支持知覺、自主動機與學習投入之關係研究- -以數學科為例(未出版之碩士論文)。國立彰化師範大學,彰化縣。
陳貴珍(2005)。國小補校教師對成人學習者特性知覺與教學型態關係之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立中正大學,嘉義縣。
陳慧珍(2008)。桃園縣國小高年級學童學習風格、教學風格偏好與學業表現之關係研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立嘉義大學,嘉義。
陳麗曲(2011)。中部地區國中學生知覺教師教學風格、學習動機與課業投入之相關研究—以英語科為例(未出版之碩士論文)。國立彰化師範大學,彰化縣。
曾心怡(1999)。性別、班級組成型態、師生互動與學習動機:以高三自然組物理科為例(未出版之碩士論文)。國立花蓮師範學院,花蓮縣。
曾鈺淳(2007)。自然教學法對學生英語學習成效與英語學習自我效能之探討(未出版之碩士論文)。國立雲林科技大學,雲林縣。
程宜繡、李麗晶(2012)。體適能指導員教學風格與學員參與動機。輔仁大學體育學刊,11, 188-197。new window
程曉樵(2005)。課堂教學中的社會行為。載於吳康寧、胡宗仁、劉雲杉、吳永軍、程曉樵與丁瑜(合著),課堂教學社會學(139-169頁)。台北:五南。

黃政傑(1977)。團體歷程理論及其在教學上的應用。國立台灣師範大學教育研究所集刊,20,563-567。
黃美齡(2011)。台灣與紐西蘭父母教養型態及教師課堂互動對幼兒情緒調節能力影響之研究(未出版之博士論文)。國立台灣師範大學,台北市。new window
黃淑惠(2002)。成人教師教育哲學取向與教學型態之相關研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立中正大學,嘉義縣。
黃富順(1995)。教學型態。載於中華民國教育學會(主編),成人教育辭典(320頁)。台北:中華民國教育學會。
黃鈺雯(2004)。嘉義地區國小高年級教師教學態度、師生互動與學生學習動機之關係研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立嘉義大學,嘉義市。
楊志芳(2009)。課堂師生互動的言談分析:以外籍和本國籍英語教師為例之個案研究(未出版之博士論文)。國立高雄師範大學,高雄市。new window
楊汶斌(2010)。國中教師教學風格、學生學習動機與英語科學習成就之關聯性研究-以桃園縣為例(未出版之碩士論文)。中原大學,桃園縣。
葉芳慈(2010)。教師教學風格與教科書使用方式之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立台北教育大學,台北市。
廖文韻(2009)。高職生英語學習動機、學習態度、自我效能與學習成就關係之研究:以台北市高職學校為例(未出版之碩士論文)。國立花蓮教育大學,花蓮縣。
廖敏軒(2010)。社會工作研究所學生系所支持、學習規劃取向與學習自我效能相關性研究(未出版之碩士論文)。東海大學,台中市。
廖萬有(2011)。雲林縣國中生自我調節學習與英語學習滿意度之研究-以自我效能為中介變項(未出版之碩士論文)。國立彰化師範大學,彰化縣。

劉東遠(2008)。技職院校學生的英文能力探究與省思。臺東大學人文學報,1(2),223-253。new window
歐玉萍(2007)國小高年級學童知覺級任教師教學風格、學習滿意度與學業成就關係之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立高雄師範大學,高雄市。
潘正德(1993)。如何建立良好的師生互動關係。學生輔導通訊,25,24-31。
潘志煌(1997)。師生教學互動中的性別差異--國小班級多重個案研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立新竹師範學院,新竹市。
蔡金鈴(2006)。彰化縣國中學生學校氣氛知覺、人際關係、學校投入與學業成就之關係研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立彰化師範大學,彰化縣。
蔡勇吉(2011)。國中學生知覺之社會學習領域地理科教師教學風格與學習動機之關係研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立嘉義大學,嘉義市。
鄭依婷(2007)。國中生學業情緒與學業成就之相關研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立成功大學,台南市。
鄭釗仁(2011)。技職校院學生選修創意課程之學習策略、創意自我效能、創新行為及創意學習成效關係之研究(未出版之博士論文)。國立彰化師範大學,彰化市。new window
鄭惠敏(2008)。教師使用互動式電子白板於自然科教學之教學信念與師生互動個案研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立新竹教育大學,新竹市。
鄧靖眉(2011)。親子依附、師生互動與學習自我效能之相關研究~以新北市高關懷學生為例(未出版之碩士論文)。中國文化大學,台北市。
盧雨薇(2010)。課堂中師生互動對台灣國中生學習動機以及學習成效之影響(未出版之碩士論文)。銘傳大學,桃園縣。
蕭英勵(2000)。建立教師個人的教學風格:以一位有創意的教師為例。教育資料與研究,32,56-61。new window
賴月心(2008)。教師性別刻板印象與師生互動之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立嘉義大學,嘉義市。
賴娟蓮(2011)。中彰地區國民中學學生學習動機與學習投入之相關研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立彰化師範大學,彰化縣。
錢清泓(2005)。師生互動情緒/議題的重讀與改寫:一群國小教師網路書寫教學日誌之研究(未出版之博士論文)。國立台北師範學院,台北市。new window
薛人華(2009)。學業謙虛、學習投入與學業成就的關係(未出版之碩士論文)。國立台北教育大學,台北市。
薛凱方(2011)。生涯自主動機歷程與生涯定向、學習投入之模式驗證-以自我決定理論之觀點(未出版之博士論文)。國立政治大學,台北市。new window
謝清鐔(2008)。大學校院通勤生學習需求重要性、滿意度與通勤影響學習投入之研究—以台北縣市二十所大學校院為例(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學,台北市。
簡新哲(2012)。國中學生自然科學習動機、教師支持、學習投入與學業成就之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。大葉大學,彰化縣。
簡馨瑩(2010)。學生提問策略教學對教室裡師生互動與教學序列結構之影響研究。當代教育研究,18(3),125-163。new window
簡馨瑩、宋曜廷、張國恩(2009)。變與不變:兩位國小教師學習自詢策略教學之歷程分析。教育心理學報,40(4),619-640。new window
羅寶鳳(2012)。大學生學習風格及對教師教學風格偏好之研究:以一所國立大學為例。中正教育研究,11(1),117-151。new window
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,6,93-21。new window

蘇美玲(2006)。國小補校本國學員與外籍配偶學員對教師教學型態偏好之比較研究--以彰化縣為例(未出版之碩士論文)。國立中正大學,嘉義縣。
蘇順發、鄭勝耀、單文經(1999)。國小低年級教師教學風格、班級情境級學生參與型為關係之探討。國民教育研究學報,5,155-177。new window

英文部分
Ackers, J., & Hardman, F. (2001). Classroom interaction in Kenyan primary school. Compare, 31(2), 245-261.
Anderson, H. H., & Brewer, H. M. (1945). Studies of teachers' classroom personalities. Applied Psychological Monograph, 6.
Angell, L. R. (2009). Construct validity of the community college survey of student engagement (CCSSE). Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 33, 564-570.
Anyadubalu, C. C. (2010). Self-efficacy, anxiety, and performance in the English language among middle-school students in English language program in Satri Si Suriyothai School, Bangkok. International Journal of Human and Social Sciences, 5(3), 193-198
Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student engagement with school: Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 369-386.
Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., Kim, D., & Reschly, A. L. (2006). Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement: Validation of the student engagement instrument. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 427-445.
Archambault, I., Janosz, M., Fallu, J.S., & Pagani, S. L. (2009). Student engagement and its relationship with early high school dropout. Journal of Adolescenece, 32(3), 651-670.
Audas, R., & Williams, J. D. (2001). Engagement and dropping out of school: A life- course perspective. Ontario, Canada: Applied Research Branch, HRDC.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1982). The self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122-147.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of though and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 248-287.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28, 117-148.
Bandura, A. (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self- efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of personality. In D. Cervone & Y. Shoda, (Eds.), The coherence of personality: Social-cognitive bases of consistency, variability, and organization (pp. 185-241). New York: Guilford Press.
Barba, R., & Cardinale, L. (1991). Are females invisible students? An investigation of teacher-student questioning interactions. School Science and Mathematics, 91(7), 306-310.
Barrett, K. R. (2004). A comparison of online teaching styles in Florida community colleges (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida.
Bennett, S. N. (1975). Cluster analysis in educational research. Research Intelligence, 1, 64-70.
Brewster, A. B., & Bowen, G. L. (2004). Teacher support and the school engagement of Latino middle and high school student at risk of school failure. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 21, 47-67.
Brostrom, R. (1979). Training style inventory. In Jones, J. E. & J. W. Pfeiffer, (Eds.). The 1979 annual handbook for group facilitators. San Diego: University Associates.
Brown, H. (1994). Principles of language learning and teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Canfiled, A. A. (1976). Canfield instruction styles inventory. Detroit, MI: Humanics Media.
Chapman, E. (2003). Alternative approaches to assessing student engagement rates. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 8(13). Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=8&n=13
Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cocea, M. (2007). Learning engagement: What actions of learners could best predict it? Retrieved from http://coceam.myweb.port.ac.uk/publications/2007/ AIED2007.pdf
Connell, J. P. (1990). Context, self and action: A motivational analysis of self-esteem processes across life-span. In D. Cicchetti (Ed.), The self in transition: From infancy to childhood (pp. 61–97). Chicago: University of Chicago press.
Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-system processes. In M. R. Gunnar & L. A. Sroufe (Eds.), Self processes and development (Vol.23, pp. 43-77). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Connell, J. P., Spencer, M. B., & Aber, J. L. (1994). Educational risk and resilience in African-American youth: Context, self, action, and outcomes in school. Child Development, 65, 493-506.
Conti, G. (1983). Principles of adult learning scale: Follow-up and factor analysis. Proceedings of 24th Annual Adult Education Research Conference, (pp.63-68).
Conti, G. (1985). Assessing teaching style in continuing education: How and why. Lifelong Learning, 8(8), 7-11, 28.
Conti, G. (1989). Assessing teaching style in continuing education. In E. Hayes (Ed.), New Directions for Continuing Education (43, Fall, pp. 3-16). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cronbach, L. J. (1977). Educational psychology (3rd ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Darkenwald, G. G. (1989). Enhancing the adult classroom environment. In E. R. Hayes (Ed.), New Directions for Continuing Education (43, Fall, pp. 67-75). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Darkenwald, G. G., & Merriam, S. B. (1988). Adult education: Foundations of effective practice. New York: Harper and Row.
Davis-Langston, C. (2012). Exploring relationships among teaching styles, teachers’ perceptions of self-efficacy, and students’ mathematics achievement (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Liberty University, Lynchburg, Virginia.
Dressel P., & Marcus, D. (1982). Teaching and learning in college. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Dunn, R. S., & Dunn, K. J. (1979). Learning styles/teaching styles. Education Leadership , 36(4), 245-254 .
Duran, D., & Monereo, C. (2005). Styles and sequences of cooperative interaction in fixed and reciprocal peer tutoring. Learning and Instruction, 15, 179-199.
Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed second language acquisition: Learning in the classroom. Oxford: Blackwell.
Entwistle, N. (1981). Styles of learning and teaching. Chicheter: Johnson Wilsey and Sons.
Fassinger, R. E. (1995). From invisibility to integration: Lesbian identify in the workplace. Quarterly, 44(2), 148-167.
Fawzia, A. (2002). Factors affecting students’ oral participation in university level academic classes within the Omani Context. Paper presented at Second Annual National ELF Conference, Sultan Qaboos University, Oman. Abstract retrieved from http://www.essex.ac.uk/linguistics/department/events/gspd/5/Abstracts/ fawzia.aspx
Fencl, H., & Scheel, K. (2005). Research and teaching: Engaging students -- An examination of the effects of teaching strategies on self-efficacy and course in a nonmajors physics course. Journal of College Science Teaching, 35(1), 20-24.
Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59, 117-142.
Finn, J. D. (1993). School engagement and students at risk. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Fischer, B., & Fischer, L. (1979). Styles in teaching and learning. Educational Leadership, 36, 245-254.
Flanders , N. A. (1970). Analyzing teaching behavior. N.Y.: Addison-Wesley.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59-109.
Fullarton, S. (2002). Student engagement with school: Individuals and school-level influences. Longitudinal Survey of Australian Youth, 27. Australian Council for Educational Research, Melbourne.
Furlong, J. J., Whipple, A. D., St. Jean, G., Simental, J., Soliz, A., & Punthuna, S. (2003). Multiple contexts of school engagement:Moving toward a unifying framework for educational research and practice. California School Psychologist, 8, 99-114.
Furrer, C. J. & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 148-162.
Furrer, C. J., Skinner, E., Marchand, G., & Kindermann, T. A. (2006). Engagement vs. disaffection as central constructs in the dynamics of motivational development. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Research on Adolescence, San Francisco, CA.
Greene, B. A., Miller, R. B., Crowson, H. M., Duke, B. L. & Akey, K. L. (2004). Predicting high school students' cognitive engagement and achievement: Contributions of classroom perceptionsand motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 462–482
Gregorc, A. F. (1979). Learning/teaching styles: Their nature and effects. In J. W. Keefe (Ed.), Student learning styles: Diagnosing and prescribing programs (pp.19-26). Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.
Hadley, H. (1975). Development of an instrument to determine adult educators’ orientation: Andragogical or pedagogical (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Boston University, Michigan.
Hartup, W. (1983). Peer relations. Socialization, Personality and Social Development, 4, 116-173.
Heimlich, J. E., & Norland, E. (1994). Developing teaching style in adult education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (1992). Understanding interactive behaviors: Looking at six mirrors of the classroom. In Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., & N. Miller, (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups: The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 71-102). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hsieh, P. H. (2008). “Why are college foreign language students self-efficacy, attitude, and motivation so different?” International Education, 38(1), 6-94.
Huang, S. C., & Chang, S. F. (1996). Self-efficacy of English as second language learner: An example of four learners. ERIC ED396536. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED396536&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED396536.
Jarvis, P. (2004). Adult education and lifelong learing: Theory and practice. London: Routledge Falmer.
Kerwin, M. A. (1979). The relationship of selected factors to the educational orientation of andragogically and pedagogically orientated educators teaching in four of North Carolina’s two-year colleges (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Klem, A. M., & Connel, J. P. (2004). Social support and achievement for young adolescents in Chicago: The role of school academic press. American Educational Research Journal, 36, 907-945.
Knight-Giuliani, L. F. (2002). The benefits of student interaction among adult students in the English as a second language classroom (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Rutgers of the State University, New Jersey.
Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we're learning about student engagement from NSSE: Benchmarks for effective educational practices. Change, 35(2), 24-32.

Kuh, G. D. (2009). What student affairs professionals need to know about student engagement. Journal of College Student Development, 50(6), 683-706.
Ladd, G, W., & Dinella, M. L. (2009). Continuity and change in early school engagement: Predictive of children's achievement trajectories from first to eighth grade? Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 190-206.
Lau, S., & Roeser, R. W. (2002). Cognitive abilities and motivational processes in high school students’ situational engagement and achievement in science. Educational Assessment, 82(2), 139-162.
Leary, T. (1957). An interpersonal diagnosis of personality. New York: Ronald Press Company.
Lee, V. E., & Smith, J. B. (1993). Effects of school restructuring on the achievement and engagement of middle-grade students. Sociology of Education, 66(2), 164-187.
Lee, V. E., & Smith, J. B. (1994). Effects of school restructuring and size on gains in achievement and engagement for early secondary school students. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED370210)
Lenz, E. (1982). The art of teaching adults. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Libby, H. P. (2004). Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to student engagement and achievement. Journal of School Health, 74, 262-273.
Lindgren, H. C. (1976). Educational psychology in the classroom. New York: Wiley.
Liu, J. (2001). Asian students’ classroom communication patterns in U.S. university: An Emic perspective. Westport: Greenwood Publication Group, Inc.
Long, M. H. (1980). Input, interaction and second language acquisition (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). University of California, Los Angeles.
Long, M. H. (1983). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to nonnative speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5, 177–194.
Long, M. H. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 377-393). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 251-285.
Malamah, T. A. (1987). Classroom interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Marks, H. M. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in the elementary, middle, and high school. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 153-184.
Miserandino, M. (1996). Children who do well in school: Individual difference in perceived competence and autonomy in above-average children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 203-214.
Mohanna, K., Chambers, R., & Wall, D. (2007). Developing your teaching style: increasing effectiveness in healthcare teaching. Post Graduate Medicine Journal, 83, 145-147
Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-6.
Mosher, R., & McGowan, B. (1985). Assessing student engagement in secondary schools: alternative conceptions, strategies of assessing, and instruments. University of Wisconsin, Research and Development Center. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 272812).
Musumeci, D. (1996). Teacher-learner negotiation in content-based instruction: communication at cross-purposes? Applied Linguistics 17, 286-325.
Newmann, F. M., Wehlage, G. G., & Lamborn, S. D. (1992). The significance and sources of student engagement. In F. M. Newmann (Ed.), Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools (pp. 11-39). New York: Teachers College Press.
Nugent, T. T. (2009). The impact of teacher-student interaction on student motivation and achievement (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida.
Oxford, R., Ehrman, M., & Lavine, R. (1991). Style wars: Teacher-student style conflicts in the language classroom. In S. Magnan, (Ed.), Challenges in the 1990's for college foreign language programs (pp.1-25). Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
Peacock, M. (2001). Match or mismatch? Learning styles and teaching styles in EFL. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(1), 1-20.
Philips, S. (1972). Participation structures and communicative competence: Warm Spring children in community and classroom, In C. B. Cazden, V. P. John, & D. Hymes (Eds.), Functions of language in the classroom (pp.370-394), New York: Teachers College Press.
Pike, G. R., & Kuh, G. D. (2005). A typology of student engagement for American colleges and universities. Research in Higher Education, 46, 185-209
Pike, G. R., Smart, J.C., Kuh, G. D., & Hayek, J. C. (2006). Educational expenditures and student engagement: When does money matter? Research in Higher Education, 47, 847-872.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merill Pretice-Hall.
Pintrich, P.R., & De Groot, E.V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33-40.
Porter, S. R. (2006). Institutional structures and student engagement. Research in Higher Education, 47, 847-872.
Rao, Z. (2001). Matching teaching styles with learning styles in East Asian contexts. The Internet TESL Journal, 3(7), Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Zhenhui-TeachingStyles.html.
Razak, A. N., Ahmad, F., & Shah, M. P. (2007). Perceived and preferred teaching styles (methods) of English for specific purposes (ESP) students. Journal of e-Bangi, 2(2), 1-20.
Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S., & Barch, J. (2004). Enhancing students’ engagement by increasing teachers’ autonomy support. Motivation and Emotion, 28(2), 147-169.
Renzulli, J. S., & Smith. L. H. (1978). Learning styles inventory: a measure of student preference for instructional techniques. Connectic: creative learning press.
Rivers, W. (1987). Interactive language teaching. NY: Cambridge University Press
Ryan, R. M., Stiller, J. D., & Lynch, J. H. (1994). Representations of relationships to teachers, parents and friends as predictors of academic motivation and self-esteem. Journal of Early Adolescence, 14, 226-249.
Sagayadevan, V. & Jeyaraj, S. (2012). The role of emotional engagement in lecturer-student interaction and the impact on academic outcomes of student achievement and learning. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 12(3), 1-30.

Sbrocco, R. (2009). Student academic engagement and the academic achievement gap between black and white middle school students: Does engagement increase student achievement? (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Minnesota, Minnesota, USA.
Schmuck, R. A., & Schmuck, P. A. (2001). Group processes in the classroom (8th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill Pub.
Schunk, D. H. (1985). Self-efficacy and classroom learning. Psychology in the School, 22, 208-223.
Schunk, D. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and cognitive skill learning. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.). Research on motivation in education, (Vol.3, pp.13-44). San Diego: Academic Press.
Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 207-231.
Schunk, D. H. (1995). Self-efficacy and education and instruction. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.), Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research, and application (pp. 281-303). New York: Plenum Press.
Schunk, D. H., & Carbonair, J. P. (1984). Self-efficacy model. Behavioral Health: A handbook of health enhancement and disease prevention. New York: Wiley.
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1994). Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
She, H. C., & Fisher, D. (2002). Teacher communication behavior and its association with students’ cognitive and attitudinal outcomes in science in Taiwan. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 63-78.

Siege, D. & McCoach, D. B. (2007). Increasing student mathematics self-efficacy through teacher training. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18, 278-312.
Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4), 571-581.
Skinner, E. A., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., & Kindermann, T. (2008). Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a motivational dynamics? Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 765-781.
Skinner, E. A., Wellborn, J. G., & Connell, J. P. (1990). What it takes to do well in school and whether I’ve got it: A process model of perceived control and children’s engagement and achievement in school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 22-32.
Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Thinking styles. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Su, M. H., & Duo, P. C. (2012). EFL learners’ language learning strategy use and perceived self-efficacy. European Journal of Social Sciences, 27(3), 335-345.
Suanmali, C. (1981). The core concepts of andragogy (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). New York: Columbia University Teachers College.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics 16, 371-391.
Treffinger, D. J. (2003). Fostering self-directed learning: 2003 update. Sarasota, FL: Center for Creative Learning. Retrieved from www.creativelearning.com.
Tuan, T. L., & Nhu, K. T. N. (2010). Theoretical review on oral interaction in EFL classrooms. Studies in Literature and Language, 1(4), 29-48.
Van Tilburg, E., & Heimlich, J. (1990). Clarifying theory through operationalizing constructs: A look at sensitivity and inclusion in adult teaching style. Proceedings of the 31st Annual Adult Education Research Conference (pp. 237-248). Athens: University of Georgia.
Von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Constructivism in education. In T. Husen, & N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The international in encyclopedia of education. Supplementary 1. (pp.162-163). New York: Pergamon Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wagner, E. D. (1997). “Interactivity”: From agents to outcomes. In T. E. Cyrs (Ed.), Teaching and learning at a distance: What it takes to effectively design, deliver, and evaluate program. (pp.19-26). San Francisco: Jossey Bass
Wilhite, S. C. (1990). Self-efficacy, locus of control, self-assessment of memory ability, and study activities as predictors of course achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 696-700.
Wood﹐D. J., Bruner﹐J. S.﹐& Ross﹐G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Child Psychology﹐17﹐89- 100.
Wubbels, T., & Levy, J. (1993). Do you know what you look like? Interpersonal relationships in education. London: Falmer Press.
Wubbels, T., Creton, H. A., & Hooymayer, H. P. (1985) . Discipline problems of beginning teachers, interactional teacher behavior mapped out. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 260 040).

Yazzie-Mintz, E. (2007). Voices of students on engagement: A report on the 2006 high school survey of student engagement. Bloomington: Center for Evaluation & Education Policy, Indiana University. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED495758
Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning:Relating grade, sex and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 51-19.
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
1. 英文故事閱讀與繪畫之教學策略對高職學生英語文學習興趣及學習成效影響之研究
2. 高齡學習者社會資本、自我效能與幸福感關係之研究—以南部地區樂齡學習中心學員為例
3. 科技大學應用英語系教師與業師專業發展活動、接受創新、教師協同與課程設計滿意度關係之研究
4. 寫作模板對成人英文寫作學習成效影響之研究
5. 融入恆毅力之刻意練習對中高齡者學習英語自我效能意義之研究
6. 對於學習慾望之引發﹑維持﹑強化產生影響之主要因素研究 ―以主修日語之台灣人日語學習者為例,其教室環境與教師因素為研究焦點―
7. 大學生課外學習成果及其影響因素之研究–從校務研究策略觀點探析
8. 私立科技大學學生學校認同、自戀傾向、驚輸行為及學習投入之影響因子權重分析
9. 技術型高中具新住民子女身分之學生在組織正義、 同儕關係、師生關係與學習滿意度之研究 -從教師與學生觀點探討
10. 影響臺灣八年級學生數學學習成就因素 之多層次模型分析
11. 閱讀與記憶策略在公職考試應用之研究
12. 閱讀教學輔導方案對學生閱讀理解成效之研究-以潛在成長模式分析
13. 客語生活化課程的教學方案研究
14. 國中生樂觀解釋型態、自我效能、自我調節與學習行為關係之研究
15. 陸生來臺就學學習歷程與學習成效及臺灣師生對陸生政策相關知覺之研究
 
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE