:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:臺灣北部三縣市八年級學生社會學習領域課堂討論經驗與影響因素之調查研究
書刊名:公民訓育學報
作者:董秀蘭
作者(外文):Doong, Shiowlan
出版日期:2006
卷期:18
頁次:頁65-89
主題關鍵詞:社會學習領域討論式教學課堂討論Social studiesTeaching with discussionClassroom discussion
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(4) 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:4
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:28
公民參與高品質的公共對話來解決社會問題,是健全公民主社會的重要表徵。因此,以培育良好公民資質為主要核心的社會學習領域,應致力於發展學生參與公共事務討論的能力;討論教學法即是培養上種能力的有效途徑。 關於討論教學法的研究,國外已有相當多的實證文獻;但國內除了少數介紹討論教學法的文獻外,對於此種教學法在課堂上的應用情形, 特別是學生對此種教學法的觀點與參與課堂討論的實際經驗等,少有實證性的研究。緣此,本研究以臺北市、臺北縣和桃園縣三縣市國中階段 社會學習領域的學生為對象,以問卷調查法實際了解我國社會領域課堂實施討論教學的情形,以及學生對教師實施討論式教學的評價和影響學 生參與討論的因素等問題。 研究結果發現:臺北市、臺北縣、桃園縣的學生對社會學習領域討堂討論持正向肯定的態度,但對於自己的意見和參與的價值,則有信心 不足的傾向;三縣市的學生對社會學習領域教師引導課堂討論之評價,傾向於正面肯定;考試和成績因素、對討論的主題有興趣或缺乏興趣、 同儕的評價、老師不客觀或愛批評學生和科目別,對學生是否參與討論具有關鍵的影響;社會學習領域三科中,公民科課堂討論的頻率最高, 地理科其次,歷史科最低;社會領域課堂中曾經討論的議題中,百分比最高的五項議題分別為「環境保護」、「升學制度」、「全民健保」、 「政黨之爭」和「家暴問題」。
Healthy democracies have many citizens engaged in high-quality public discourse of common problems. Discussion about public problems is positively linked to what citizens learn from one another and to the solution of important issues. Thus, it has been argued by many educators and scholars that the most important component of effective democratic citizenship preparation involves teaching students show to deliberate about the nature of the common good. That is, school curricula need to emphasize civic discourse, particularly face-to-face discussion. There are numerous empirical studies regarding teaching with discussion in social classrooms. However, none of them were done in Taiwan. Questions about how teachers apply discussion method in their classrooms and what experiences students have in terms of classroom discussion remain unknown. Thus, this study aims to answer the above-mentioned questions targeting on social studies classrooms and students. This study employed quantitative survey to inquire the reality of teaching with discussion in social studies classrooms in Taipei City, Taipei Count and Taoyuan County. Results generated from this stud indicate that students generally hold positive attitudes toward classroom discussions, and that the most influential factor in students' participation in classroom discussion is the pressure of examinations and grades, while teachers' gender is the least influential factor. In sum, students in the three surveyed city/counties share significantly similar experiences in classroom discussions.
期刊論文
1.陳國彥(19920800)。討論教學法在社會科教學上之應用。國教天地,93,39-45。  延伸查詢new window
2.Onosko, Joseph J.(1996)。Exploring issues with students despite the barriers。Social Education,60(1),22-27。  new window
3.王千倖(19961100)。有效的小組討論教學。師友月刊,353,44-49。  延伸查詢new window
4.王金國(20000600)。簡介小組討論教學法。教育研究,8,137-147。  延伸查詢new window
研究報告
1.廖添富、劉美慧、董秀蘭(1998)。議題中心教學對國中學生公民參與態度影響之實驗研究 (計畫編號:NSC87-2413-H-003-020)。臺北:國立臺灣師範大學教育學系。  延伸查詢new window
學位論文
1.沈文蓓(1997)。小學高年級學生小組討論之歷程分析(碩士論文)。國立臺南師範學院。  延伸查詢new window
圖書
1.McNeil, L. M.(1986)。Contradictions of control。Contradictions of control。N. Y.:Routledge。  new window
2.教育部(2003)。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要。臺北市:教育部。  延伸查詢new window
3.陳國彥(2001)。社會領域課程與教學。臺北:學富文化。  延伸查詢new window
4.Dillon, James T.(1994)。Using Discussion in Classrooms。Buckingham, PA:Open University Press。  new window
5.Goodlad, J. I.(1984)。A Place Called School: Prospects for the Future。New York, NY:McGraw-Hill Book Company。  new window
6.Barber, Benjamin R.(1984)。Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age。University of California Press。  new window
其他
1.沈明珍(1989)。討論法在社會科教學的應用。  延伸查詢new window
2.教育部(2004)。中華民國教育統計。  延伸查詢new window
3.黃永結(1989)。善用生動活潑的小組討論法於國小班級教學。  延伸查詢new window
4.曾慧佳(1998)。討論法的教學模式:以「可不可以追別人的男、女朋友」的討論為例。  延伸查詢new window
5.楊智穎(1999)。討論教學法在班級教學上的應用。  延伸查詢new window
6.Barber, B. R.(1989)。Public talk and civic action: Education for participation in a strong democracy。  new window
7.Bridges, D.(1988)。Education, democracy and discussion。  new window
8.Bridges, D.(1990)。The character of discussion: A focus on students。  new window
9.Connolly, B., & Smith M. W.(2002)。Teachers and students talk about talk: Class discussion and the way it should be。  new window
10.Dossin, M. M.(1994)。Why won't they talk?。  new window
11.Engle, S. H.(1989)。Decision making: The heart of social studies instruction。  new window
12.Gall, M. D.(1985)。Discussion methods of teaching。  new window
13.Gall, M. D. & Gall, J. P.(1990)。Outcomes of the discussion method。  new window
14.Hahn, C. L.(1991)。Controversial Issues in social studies。  new window
15.Hess, D., & Posselt, J.(2002)。How high school students experience and learn from the discussion of controversial public issues。  new window
16.Kettering Foundation(1993)。Meaningful chaos: How people form relationships with public concerns。  new window
17.Kniep, W. M.(1989)。Social studies within a global education。  new window
18.Liu, M.(1995)。Teachers’ perspectives toward the issues-centered instructional approach。  new window
19.Mansbridge, J.(1991)。Democracy, deliberation, and the experience of women。  new window
20.Newmann, F. M.(1988)。Higher-order thinking in high school social studies: An analysis of classrooms。  new window
21.Nystrand, M., Gainoran, A., & Carbonara, W.(1998)。Towards an ecology of learning: The case of classroom discourse and its effects on writing in high school English and Social Studies。  new window
22.Parker, W. C.(1996)。Curriculum for democracy。  new window
23.Parker, W. C., & Hess, D.(2001)。Teaching with and for discussion。  new window
24.Petress, K.(2001)。The ethics of student classroom silence。  new window
25.Rossi, J. A.(1995)。In-depth study in an issues-oriented social studies classroom。  new window
26.Townsend, J. S.(1998)。Silent voices: What happens to quiet students during classroom discussions?。  new window
27.Wade, R. C.(1994)。Teacher education students’ views on class discussion: Implications for fostering critical reflection。  new window
28.Wilen, W. W.(1990)。Forms and phases of discussion。  new window
29.Wilen, W. W.(200211)。Encouraging reticent students' participation in classroom discussions。  new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
QR Code
QRCODE