以交互式教學法提升臺灣國中生批判思考能力之研究

Abstract

本研究主要探討在國中英語課堂實行交互式教學法(Reciprocal Teaching)，以提升學生批判思考能力，並落實教育部頒布的108新課綱精神。參與本研究的學生為新北市某國中，33位七年級學生。本實驗為期三週，分成三階段進行，合計共七堂課，並以課本三篇課本非文學類文章(non-fiction reading)作為閱讀教材。本研究作者主要採用布魯姆(B.S. Bloom) 1956年所提出的認知領域教育目標分類(A Taxonomy of Educational Objectives) ，分析學生在四個閱讀策略—預測(predicting)、澄清(clarifying)、總結(summarizing)及提問(questioning)中，批判思考能力—應用(applying)、分析(analyzing)、評價(evaluating)及創造(creating)的學習成效，並透過學習單上的問卷了解學生對於小組討論的看法。研究結果顯示，預測和提問策略對學生應用技能的發展有顯著成效。而提問策略在促進學生分析能力方面最為有效。然而，提問策略對學生評價和創造能力的提升並未產生顯著影響。儘管如此，小組討論的過程仍對於評價類型的提問有所助益，而教師鷹架(scaffolding)則可促進學生發展創造能力。除此之外，交互式教學法對高低成就者則有不同的成效。澄清和總結策略有效地提升了高成就學生的分析能力，然而，預測和提問策略則未能提升他們的應用和分析能力，推測是因為高成就者在一開始就已經精熟這些能力。相反地，預測和提問策略則增強了低成就學生的應用能力，提問策略也同時提升了他們的分析能力。不過高低成就者在評價和創造能力，都未有顯著進步。最後，本研究也提供了將交互式教學法融入課程設計中的教學建議，例如：教師可將預測策略作為學生預習時的自主閱讀、進行澄清字彙時可以提供學生鷹架輔助、總結文本時可以引導學生練習改述的能力、提問策略時可以有更漸進式的引導方法等。另外，文本的挑選、及教師的引導方式也可能影響學生批判思考能力的發展。期待透過本研究結果，能啟發更多英語教師應用此教學法，並提升學生的批判思考能力。This study aimed to explore the effects of implementing Reciprocal Teaching (hereafter abbreviated as RT), a reading strategy by Palincsar and Brown (1984), in junior high school English classes to foster students’ Critical Thinking (hereafter abbreviated as CT) skills in alignment with the new curriculum guidelines issued by the Ministry of Education (MOE, 2018). Participants included thirty-three seventh-grade students from a junior high school in New Taipei City. The study was conducted over three weeks and was divided into three stages, with seven periods in total. The reading materials comprised three non-fiction passages selected from the textbook. The researcher utilized Bloom’s Taxonomy (1956) to code students’ CT performances. In addition, a questionnaire was used to gather students’ views on group discussions as part of the RT approach. The findings suggest that the predicting and questioning strategies were especially effective in improving students’ applying skills, while the questioning strategy significantly enhanced their analyzing skills. However, questioning strategies did not lead to a significant improvement in evaluating or creating skills. Nevertheless, group discussions improved the quality of students’ questions, and teacher scaffolding fostered creativity thinking. Additionally, the effects of RT varied between high- and low-achievers. For high-achievers, clarifying and summarizing strategies significantly enhanced their analyzing skills; however, predicting and questioning strategies did not further develop their applying or analyzing skills since they were already proficient. In contrast, the predicting and questioning strategies enhanced low-achievers’ applying skills, and questioning further supported their analyzing abilities. However, no strategies were identified as effective for fostering evaluating, and creating skills for either group. In conclusion, this study provides pedagogical implications for integrating RT into course design. First, teachers can encourage students to use predicting as a self-learning pre-reading strategy. Second, teachers can provide more scaffolding to support the background knowledge students need in clarifying strategies. Third, teachers can provide more guidance on productive skills when students exercise summarizing strategies. Fourth, teachers can employ a more gradual and progressive approach when guiding students questioning strategies. Finally, the content of the readings and the teaching method used in RT should also be taken into consideration when teachers develop students’ CT skills. It is hoped that the results of this study will inspire more English teachers to adopt RT to help students develop CT skills.