請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/23198
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 林珊如 | |
dc.contributor.author | Ya-Hong Siao | en |
dc.contributor.author | 蕭雅鴻 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-08T04:47:00Z | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2011-08-23 | |
dc.date.issued | 2011 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2011-08-16 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Afzal, W. (2006). An argument for the inceased use of qualitative reseach in LIS. Emparia state resaech studies, 43(1), 22-25.
American Library Association. (2008) . Standards for Accreditation of Master's Programs in Library and Information Studies. Retrieved Fabuary 12, 2011, from http://www.ala.org/ala/educationcareers/education/accreditedprograms/standards/standards_2008.pdf American Library Association. (2009). ALA’s core competences of librarianship. Retrieved Fabuary 12, 2011, from http://www.ala.org/ala/educationcareers/careers/corecomp/corecompetences/finalcorecompstat09.pdf ASERL (2001). Shaping the future: ASERL’s competencies for research librarians. Retrieved January 31, 2011, from http://www.aserl.org/statements/competencies/competencies.htm Atkins, S. E. (1988). Subject trends in library and information science research, 1975-1984. Library trends, 36(Spring), 633-658. Bates, J. M. (1999). The invisible substrate of information science. Journal of the American society for information science, 50(12), 1043-1050. Blake, V. L. P. (2003). Research methods in LIS dissertations. In Encyclopedia of library and information science(pp. 2513-2523). New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc. Blick, A.R. (1984). Information science research versus the practitioner. In H. J. Dietschmann (Eds.). , Representation and exchange of knowledge as a basis of information processes (pp. 231–244). North-Holland, Amsterdam: The Netherlands. Boyle, T. (2010). Layered learning design: Towards an integration of learning design and learning object perspectives. Computers & Education, 54(3), 661-668. Bradley, F. (2008). Writing for the profession: The experience of new professionals, Library management, 29(8/9), 729-745. Busha, C. H. (1983). The meaning and value of theory: An introduction. Drexel Library Quarterly, 19(2), 1-4. Clapton, J. (2010). Library and information science practitioners writing for publication: Motivations, barriers and supports. Library and information research, 34(106), 7-21. Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (2004). Body of professional knowledge: Setting out an adaptable and flexible framework for your changing needs. Retrieved Fabuary 18, 2011, from http://www.cilip.org.uk/sitecollectiondocuments/PDFs/qualificationschartership/BPK.pdf Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research deign: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dillon, A., & Norris, A. (2005). Crying wolf: An examination and reconsideration of the perception of crisis in LIS education. Journal of education in library and information science, 46(4), 280-298. Feldmann, L. (2006). Subject librarians in the changing academic library. The electronic journal of academic and special librarianship, 7(3). Retrieved Janarury 30, 2011, from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com/hww/jumpstart.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e34c53a011b5d00a08bb0f257187b504816f3750c2bb75c756fe9b794a545f7da&fmt=C Fidel, R. (1993). Qualitative methods in information retrieval research. Library and Information Science Research, 15(3),219-247. Fidel, R. (2008). Are we there yet?: Mixed methods research in library and information science. Library and information science research, 30(4), 265-272. Fisher, B., Hallam, G., & Partridge, H. (2005). Different approaches – common conclusions: The skills debate of the 21st Centruy. In P. Genoni & G. Walton (Eds.)., Continuing professional development- preparing for new roles in librariesw: A voyage of discover. Herndon, VA: Walter de Gruyter, Inc. Feehan, P. E., Gragg, W. L., Haverner, W. M., & Kester, D. D. (1987). Library and information science research: An analysis of the 1984 journal literature. Library and Information Science Research, 9(3), 173-185. Glassick, C. E. (2000). Boyer’s expanded definitions of scholarship, the standard for assessing scholarship, and the elusiveness of the scholarship of teaching. Academic medicine, 75(9), 877-880. Grotzinger, L. (1981). Methodology of library science inquiry. In Busha, C. H.(ed.), A library science research reader and bibliographic guide(pp.38-50). Littleton, Co.:Libraries Unlimited. Haddow, G. & Klobas, J. E. (2004). Communication of research to practice in library and information science: Closing the gap. Library and Information Science Research, 26(1), 29-45 Harden, R. M. (2001). AMEE guide no. 21: Curruculum mapping: A tool for transparent and authentic teaching and learning. Medical teacher, 23(2), 123-137. Hernon, P., & Schwartz, C. (1993). Editorial - Library and information science research: What do we need? Library and information science research, 15, 115–116. Heye, D. (2006). Creativity and innovation: Two key characteristics of the 21st century information professional. Business Information Review, 23(4), 252 – 257 Hider, P., & Pymn, B. (2008). Empirical research methods reported in high-profile LIS journal literature. Library and information science research, 30, 108-114. Hildreth, C., & Aytac, S. (2007). Recent library practitioner reserch: A methodological analysis and critique. Journal of education for library and information science, 48(3), 236-258. Jarvelin, K., & Vakkari, P. (1990). Content analysis of research articles in the library and information science. Library and information science research, 12(4), 395-421. Jarvelin, K., & Vakkari, P. (1993). The evolution of library and information science 1965-1985: A content analysis of journal articles. Information Processing and Management, 29(1), 129-144. Juznic, P., & Urbanija, J. (2003). Developing research skills in library and information science studies. Library management, 24(6/7), 324-331. Koufogiannakis, D., Slater, L., & Crumley, E. (2004). A content analysis of librarianship research. Journal of information science, 30(3), 227-239. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2008). Assessing the impact of disciplinary research on teaching: An automatic analysis of online syllabuses. Journal of the american society for information science and technology, 59(13), 2060-2069. Lassi, M., & Sonnenwald, D. H. (2010). Designing a digital research object collaboratory for the the LIS community. In E. G. Abels, & D.Barreau (Co-chairs), ALISE 2010 creating a culture of collaboration. Conference held at Boston Park Plaza Hotel and Towers, Boston. Lawal, I. O. (2009). Library and information science research in the 21st century: A guide for practicing library and students.Oxford, Cambridge: Chandos Publishing. Liebscher, P. (1998). Quantity with quality? Teaching quantitative and qualitative methods in an LIS master’s program. Library trends, 46(4), 668-680. Medical Library Association. (1991). Health information science knowledge and skills. Retrieved January 28, 2011, from http://www.mlanet.org/education/platform/skills.html#7 Markey, K. (2004). Current educational trends in the information and library science curriculum. Journal of education for library and information science, 45(4), 317-339. Martin, L. A. (1957). Research in education for librarianship. Library trends, 6, 207-218. McKechnie L. E. F., & Pettigrew, K. E. (2002). Surveying the use of theory in library and information science research: A disciplinary perspective. Library trends, 50(3), 406-417. Morris, A. (2006). Provision of research methods teaching in UK LIS departments. New library world, 107(3/4), 116-126. Myburgh, S. (2003). Education directions for new information professionals. Australian library journal, 52(3), 213-227. Nour, M. M. (1985). A quantitative analysis of the research articles published in core library journal of 1980. Library and information science research, 7(3), 261-273. O’Connor, D., & Park, S. (2001). Crisis in LIS research capacity. Library and information science research, 23(2), 103-106. Palfrey, J., & Gasser, U. (2008). Born digital. New York: Basic Books. Paris, M. (1988). Library school closings: Four case studies. Metuchen, NJ: The Scarecrow Press, Inc. Park, S. (2003). Research methods as a core competency. Journal of education for library and information science, 44, 17-25. Park, S. (2004). The study of research methods in LIS education: Issues in Korean and U.S. universities. Library and information science research, 26, 501-510. Peritz, B. C. (1980). The methods of library science research: Some results from a bibliometric survey. Library Research, 2(3), 251-268. Powell, R.R., & Connaway, L.S. (2004). Basic research methods for librarians. (4th ed.). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited. Rayward, B. W. (1968). Conflict, interdependence, mediocrity: Librarians and library educators. Library Journal, 108(13), 1313-1317. Rehman, S. U., Al-Ansari, H., & Yousef, N. (2002). Coverage of competencies in the curriculum of information studies: An international perspective. Education for information, 30(3/4), 199-215. Riggs, D. E. (1994). Losing the foundation of understanding. American libraries, 25(5), 449. Robinson., L., & Bawden, D. (2010). Information (and library) science at City University London: Fifty years of educational development. Journal of Information Science, 36, 631-654. Rowley, J. (2004). Researching people and organizations. Library management, 25(4/5), 208-214. Stephenson, M. S. (1990). Teaching research methods in library and information studies programs. Journal of educational for library and information science, 31(1), 49-65. Stoffle, C. J., & Leeder, K. (2005). Practitioners and library education: A crisis of understanding. Journal of education for library and information science, 46(4), 312-319. Swisher, R. (1986). Focus on research. Top of the News, 42, 175–177. Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. The International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions. (2003). Guidelines for professional library/information educational programs. Retrieved February 12, 2011, from http://archive.ifla.org/VII/s23/bulletin/guidelines.htm The special libraries association (2003). Competencies for special librarians of the 21st Century. Retrieved Fabuary 12, 2011, from http://www.sla.org/content/SLA/professional/meaning/competency.cfm Tonta, Y., & Duzyol, G. (2010). Mapping the structure and evolution of research methods in library and information science. Retrieved January 30, 2011, from http://www.bby.hacettepe.edu.tr/e-bulten/dosyalar/file/eylul2010/tonta-duzyol_QQML2010.pdf Wallace, D. P., & Fleet, C. V. (2001). Library evaluation: A casebook and can-do guide. Colorado: Libraries Unlimited. Wildemuth, B. M. (2009). Applications of social research methods to questions in information and library science. Westport, CT: Libraries Limited. Wilson, P. (1977).Barriers to research in library schools: A framework for analysis. Journal of education for librarianship, 17(1), 3-19. Adler, M. J., & Doren, C. V.(2003)。如何閱讀一本書(How to read a book,郝明義、朱衣譯)。臺北市:臺灣商務。(原作1972年出版) Babbie (2006)。研究方法:基礎理論與技巧(The basics of social research,林佳瑩、徐富珍校訂)。臺北市:新加坡商湯姆生亞洲私人有限公司台灣分公司。(原作2002年出版) Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P.(2010)。混合方法研究導論(Designing and conducting mixed methods research,謝志偉、王慧玉譯)。臺北市:心理。(原作2006年出版) Flick, U.(2007)。質性研究導論(Qualitative sozialforschung,李政賢、廖志恆、林靜如譯)。臺北市:五南。(原作2002年二版) Kuhn, T. S.(2004)。科學革命的結構(The structrue of Scientific Revolutions,王道還譯)。臺北市:遠流。(原作1962年出版) Maxwell, J. A.(2001)。質化研究設計:一種互動取向的方法(Qualitative research design: An interactive approach,高熏芳、林盈助、王向葵譯)。臺北市:心理。(原作1996年出版) Neuman, W. L. (2000)。社會研究方法—質化與量化取向(Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches,朱柔若譯)。臺北市:揚智。(原作1997年三版) Patton, M. Q.(1995)。質的評鑑與研究(Qualitative evaluation and reseach methods,吳芝儀、李奉儒譯)。新北市:桂冠。(原作1980年出版) Partt, D.(2000)。課程設計─教育專業手冊(Cruuiculum planning: A handbook for professionals,黃銘惇、張慧芝譯)。新北市:桂冠。(原作1994年出版) Ramon, Y. C.(2000)。研究科學的第一步:給年輕探索者的建議(Advice for a young investigator,程樹德譯)。臺北市:究竟。(原作1961年四版) Robinson, K., & Aronica, L.(2009)。讓天賦自由(The element: How finding your passion changes everything,謝凱蒂譯)。臺北市:天下遠見。 中華圖書資訊學教育學會(2009)。臺灣圖書資訊學教育指南。上網時間:2011年2月2日,檢自:http://www3.nccu.edu.tw/~meilingw/report/Taiwan_lis_guide.pdf 王文科(2007)。課程與教學論。臺北市:五南。 王秀槐(2007)。大學教與學的學術研究。國立臺灣大學教學發展中心電子報,6。上網時間:2011年2月4日,檢自:http://ctld.ntu.edu.tw/epaper/?p=177。 王芳、王向女(2010)。我國情報學研究方法的計量分析:以1999至2008年《情報學報》為例。情報學報,29(4),652-662。 王梅玲(2001)。廿一世紀我國學術圖書館館員應具備的知識與技能的研究。資訊傳播與圖書館學, 8(1),41-58。 王梅玲(2004)。圖書資訊學碩士生專業學習之探討。中國圖書館學會會報,72,1-12。上網日期:2011年2月2日,檢自:http://www.lac.org.tw/admin/ArticleFolder/2/72%E6%9C%9F/%E7%8E%8B%E6%A2%85%E7%8E%B2.pdf 王梅玲(2005)。臺灣圖書資訊學系所教師專長調查報告。中華圖書資訊學教育學會會訊,25,27-71。 王梅玲(2009)。圖書資訊學教育。在國家圖書館輔導組編著,中華民國九十八年圖書館年鑑(專題,頁219-238)。臺北市:國家圖書館。 王梅玲、陳巧倫(2009)。品質保證應用在圖書資訊學數位課程發展之行動研究。圖書館學與資訊科學,35(2),54-65。 王梅玲、蔡家縈(2009)。臺灣圖書資訊學教育指南發展之研究。大學圖書館,13(1),56-84。 余玟靜(2006)。大學圖書館館員對於發表期刊文章認知與態度之研究。未出版碩士之論文,國立中興大學圖書資訊學研究所,臺中市。 余德慧(2001)。詮釋現象心理學。臺北市:心靈工坊文化。 何思偉(2008)。台灣高等教育數位學習政策與推動策略研究。未出版之碩士論文,中原大學資訊管理研究所,桃園縣。 吳明清(1996)。教學方法的運用。在教材教法的問題與趨勢(頁33-44)。臺北市:師大書苑。 吳明德(1997)。大學圖書館員角色的省思。大學圖書館,1(1),8-13。 吳美美(1996)。有關「圖書館學研究方法」的課程。在胡述兆教授七秩榮慶祝壽論文集編輯小組編,圖書館與資訊研究論集:慶祝胡述兆教授七秩榮慶論文集(頁359-376)。臺北市:漢美。 吳美美(2004)。數位學習現況與未來發展。圖書館學與資訊科學,30(2),92-106。 吳美美、吳思慧(2006)。在職進修者研究方法課的數位學習研究。國家圖書館館刊,95(1),89-111。 吳美美(2007)。大學數位教學設計課程模式與課程評鑑。教育資料與研究,78,61-90。 吳美美、Foster, J.(2009)。探究小組協作資訊尋求的成功與困難因素。教育資料與圖書館學,47(2),123-146。 林文生(2000)。如何以行動研究來改變教師的課程地圖。教育資料與研究,35,25-30。 林巧敏(1994)。圖書館學研究方法及研究主題述評。國立中央圖書館臺灣分館館刊,1(2),45-53。 林欣怡(2005)。臺灣與日本圖書資訊學研究之比較。未出版之碩士論文,國立臺灣大學圖書資訊學研究所,臺北市。 林珊如、許禎芸(2008)。從國內碩士論文探討資訊行為相關研究。圖書資訊學研究,3(1),51-74。 林珊如、蕭雅鴻(2010)。學習物件應用於圖書資訊學研究方法課程之設計實例與探討。在中華民國圖書館學會編,2010圖書資訊學研討會(頁129-138)。 林思伶、蔡進雄(2005)。論凝聚教師學習社群的有效途徑。教育研究,132,99-109。 林素甘、柯皓仁(1997)。圖書館員專業知能與繼續教育。國家圖書館館刊,96(2),31-63。 林雯瑤(2004)。臺灣地區圖書館館員期刊文獻發表之研究。大學圖書館,8(1),167-192。 林頌堅(2002)基於高頻詞語的圖書資訊學研究領域分析之初步探討。中國圖書館學會會報,69,138-154。 林瑞榮(2000)。教學資源。上網日期:2011年6月30日,檢自:http://ed.nict.gov.tw/cgi-bin/tudic/gsweb.cgi?ccd=RkdSYM&o=e0&sec=sec3&dispcnt=1&active=&s=sid=%2200000085468%22 林麗娟、蘇諼(2010)。學術研究問題解決過程之不確定性分析。教育資料與圖書館學,48(2),175-201。 周平(2004)。社會科學「不社會」,自然科學「不自然」:比較兩個領域研究生論文寫作過程的儀式化和規訓與懲罰。在林本炫、鄒川雄編,權力與教育:一個批判的分析(頁133-159)。嘉義縣大林鎮 : 南華大學教社所出版。 邱于真(2011)。課程藍圖的規劃:如何撰寫課程大綱。國立臺灣大學教學發展中心電子報,54。上網時間:2011年2月10日,檢自:http://ctld.ntu.edu.tw/epaper/?p=1870。 邱銘心(2009)。學科專家館員人才招募研究:以在美國圖書館學會認可之圖書資訊研究所就讀之潛在學科館員為例。圖書資訊學研究,3(2),55-74。 柯君儀、王梅玲(2007)。臺灣圖書資訊學碩士生就業與能力需求之研究。大學圖書館,11(1),97-116。 施孟雅(1992)。從專業期刊文獻分析我國臺灣地區的圖書館學研究。臺北市:漢美。 袁大鈺、唐牧群(2010)。跨領域學術社群之智識網絡結構初探:以臺灣科技與社會研究為例 。圖書資訊學刊,8(2), 125-155 徐欣儀(2010)。1999-2009年我國圖書資訊學碩士論文調查研究。未出版之碩士論文,國立政治大學圖書資訊與檔案學研究所,臺北市。 徐敏珠、楊建民(2006)。我國高等教育之數位學習發展策略分析。教育學刊,26,191-214。 徐韻婷(2007)。臺灣與中國大陸圖書資訊學核心期刊之主題分析研究─以1997-2006年為例。未出版之碩士論文,國立政治大學圖書資訊與檔案學研究所,臺北市。 張清濱(2009)。教學原理與實務。臺北市:五南。 張瑜倫(2006)。臺灣圖書資訊學碩士論文引用現象之研究:二〇〇三至二〇〇五年。未出版之碩士論文,淡江大學資訊與圖書館學系碩士班,新北市。 陳立原(2006)。以Ontology和FRBR技術分析博碩士論文探討圖書資訊學之學科發展與知識關聯。未出版之碩士論文,國立臺灣師範大學社會教育學系在職進修碩士班,臺北市。 陳向明(2002)。社會科學質的研究。臺北市:五南。 陳旭耀(1997)。臺灣地區圖書資訊學碩士論文及其引用文獻之研究。未出版之碩士論文,輔仁大學圖書資訊學系,新北市。 陳亞寧(2010)。圖書館未來發展之探索性研究。在中華民國圖書館學會編,2010圖書資訊學研討會(頁109-128)。 陳美玉 (2006)。從內隱知識的觀點論教師學習與專業發展。課程與教學,9(3),1-14。 陳美如(2007)。課程理解:教師取向之研究。臺北市:五南。 陳淑芬(2004)。四十年來臺灣圖書資訊學碩士論文研究主題之析論。未出版之碩士論文,輔仁大學圖書資訊學系,新北市。 黃政傑(1996)。教材教法的問題與趨勢。臺北市:師大書苑。 黃慕萱、何蕙菩(2007)。圖書資訊學知識來源與知識擴散學科之研究。圖書資訊學刊,5(1/2),1-30。 馮國鈞(2007)。大學教師執行教學設計之個案研究。未出版之碩士論文,淡江大學教育科技學系,新北市。 楊美華(2003)。e 世代圖書資訊從業人員應加強之專業能力。在中華圖書資訊學教育學會編,圖書資訊專業人才能力培育研討會論文集(頁22-23)。臺中市:編者。 楊美華(2004)。我國圖書資訊學教育的省思。圖書館學與資訊科學,30(2),46-58。 楊美華、陳冠穎(2007)。我國圖書資訊學門研究人力及學術成果探析。圖書與資訊學刊,61,3-23。 甄曉蘭(2004)。課程理論與實務─解構與重建。臺北市:高等教育文化。 蔡佳芸(2010)。「華語文數位教學設計」數位學習課程設計與發展。未出版之碩士論文,淡江大學教育科技學系,新北市。 蔡佩玲(2009)。近年來海峽兩岸有關電子資源與圖書館服務研究成果分析-以期刊論文為例。國家圖書館館刊,98(2),59-84。 潘淑滿(2003)。質性研究:理論與應用。臺北市:心理。 鄭麗敏(1994)。近二十年來臺灣地區圖書館學與資訊科學期刊論文引用參考文獻特性分析。未出版之碩士論文,淡江大學教育資料科學研究所,新北市。 歐陽崇榮、關中、童瓊慧、薛志峰(2006)。從期刊及博碩士論文分析探討臺灣圖書資訊學之研究。教育資料與圖書館學,43(4),389-411。 賴鼎銘(1993a)。圖書館學研究的典範危機。在圖書館學的哲學(第三章,頁29-52)。臺北市:文華圖書館管理。 賴鼎銘(1993b)。由美國圖書館學校關門談起。在圖書館學的哲學(第七章,頁135-144)。臺北市:文華圖書館管理。 賴鼎銘(1993c)。結論:新科技可以解決我們的困境嗎?。在圖書館學的哲學(第十章,頁219-237)。臺北市:文華圖書館管理。 賴鼎銘(1997)。後現代社會下的圖書資訊服務。圖書館學與資訊科學,23(1),43-59。 賴鼎銘、吳萬鈞(1997)。圖書資訊學教育有待突破的二個方向。中國圖書館學會會報,58,37-42。 謝依玲(2008)。教學媒體對餐旅相關科系學生之學習動機與學習成效影響之研究。未出版之碩士論文,國立臺灣師範大學人類發展與家庭學系,臺北市。上網日期:2011年06月25日,網址:http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs32/gsweb.cgi?o=dnclcdr&s=id=%22096NTNU5261007%22.&searchmode=basic 謝思琪(2004)。我國大學教師優質教學模式之探索研究。未出版之碩士論文,國立政治大學教育學系,臺北市 藍佩嘉(2005)。論文登山者的霹靂包:藍佩嘉序。在教授為什麼沒告訴我─論文枕邊寫作書(頁XV-VII)。臺北市:學富。 羅思嘉、陳光華、林純如(2001)。圖書資訊學學術文獻主題分類體系之研究。圖書資訊學刊,16,187-207 蘇諼(2001)。圖書資訊學研究方法課程的現況與問題。圖書與資訊學刊,36,28-37。 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/23198 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 過去文獻指出,研究方法課程之教學有助於學域研究質與量之成長,及實務工作品質與效率之提升。然而,關於研究方法課程教師如何將其心中對研究方法課程教學之籌劃,實踐於教學現場,使得學生具備應有的研究方法知能之研究不多。故此,本研究之目的,在於檢視研究方法課程教學之現況,以及教師進行教學設計時的考量,作為日後教師進行教學設計之依據,或是圖書資訊學研究方法課程發展之參考。
本研究設計以國內七所圖書資訊學相關研究所研究方法課程之授課課程大綱,以及現任和曾任授課教師為主要的研究對象。本研究先針對九份課程大綱進行內容的分析,比較異同,取得教師所設計的教學內容、教學法與教學策略、教學評量與教學資源之認識;另一方面,對曾任或現任研究方法課程之七位授課教師,使用半結構式深度訪談法,瞭解授課教師設計教學內容、教學法與教學策略、教學評量與教學資源時的用意,並分析其影響因素。 研究結果發現,從研究方法課程教師之教學歷程,獲得影響教師進行教學設計的因素、教師進行教學設計時所考量的因素、教師教學時所面臨的困難,與教學實踐四個範疇。影響教師進行教學設計的因素係指教師對研究方法課程教學的理解、預備與決策,與教師教學上所遭遇的困難,兩者將會影響教師對教學的規劃。教師教學上所遭遇的困難,則是教學實踐的結果之一,而教師教學實踐經驗將會反饋至教師對研究方法課程教學之理解、預備與決策,此為一個循環反覆的教學歷程。再者,教師進行教學之規劃時,所考量的因素包含:教學內容、教學法與教學策略、教學評量(作業),與教學資源。據此,本研究歸納出「教學內容架構」,共有九個教學單元,與「教學內容施行模式」,包含一般模式、方法優先模式與潛規則模式;以「教師導向─課堂講授」或以「學生導向─書報討論」為主的教學法,以及「師生研討與觀摩」和「學生學習經歷記錄」之教學策略;教學評量則以「期末報告─研究計劃書」為總結性評量,將完成總結性評量所需之學習,再規劃成小型作業之形成性評量;教學資源則有語文模式和互補模式兩種類型。 根據研究發現與研究結果,圖書資訊學研究方法相關教學資源取得不易,以及學生先備知識不足等情況提出三項建議:圖書資訊學相關系所的研究方法課程教師,可共製或共享教學資源;連結相關課程教師共同規劃研究方法知能之學習地圖;施行前導課程,加強學生基礎領域知識的認識與資訊素養能力。最後,本研究提出以「以行動研究深入探究教師教學歷程」、「以學生觀點瞭解教師設計的教學內容與教學方式對學生學習之影響」,與「參考本研究結果發展研究方法課程通用架構」之後續研究建議。本研究之實徵資料亦可作為日後進行比較研究之基礎。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | From previous studies, research method courses can improve the quality and quantity of research studies in Library and information science. Meanwhile, it can also escalate the efficacy and efficiency in practice. However there were few research studies done in terms of assisting teachers to formulate methods to better improve the research techniques of graduate students. Therefore the purposes of this study are to investigate the teaching of Library and information science research method courses nowadays and to explore the factors that influence teachers in designing the teaching plan. Furthermore, the outcome will form the basis of imporving the instructional design or reference for developing the curriculum framework.
In this study, the data collection was conducted in two-stages. Firstly, there were the analysis of nine syllabi composed of the current and former teachers of library and information science research method courses. The purpose of this stage was to explore the factors that would be considered by teachers while planning their teaching. Secondly, seven current and former teachers of Library and Information Science research method courses were interviewed in depth. It is followed by the evaluation of the ideas behind the teaching plans each teacher had developed. This will provide a better understanding of each teacher’s perspective and expectation in the planning process. The results revealed that the teaching process showed four categories, which are “the factors that influenced the teachers’ perception and the expectation about the teaching plan”; “the difficulties during the teaching preparation and implement”; “the teaching practice” and “the factors which are related to the purposes of teaching plan and to the structure of teaching plan”. The four categories of teaching process will influence one another. In the mean time, teachers will gain the precious experience from the teaching preparation and implement, and the process will further improve the teaching plan design based upon actual students’ needs. According to the results, when teachers design the teaching plan, it involves five factors, which are “teaching content”, “teaching methods”, “teaching strategies”, “assessment” and “teaching resources”, will be considered as well. Firstly, the framework of the teaching content consists of nine teaching units. There are three kinds of teaching content implement model: “Normal Model”, “Method-First Model” and “Hidden Rule Model”. Secondly, there are two different kinds of teaching methods approach. One is “Teacher-Oriented Approach” and the other is “Student-Oriented Approach”. “Teacher-Oriented Approach” means that teachers prefer to teach by lecture, and teachers will have enough time to reinforce the learning process by hand on experience. “Student-Oriented Approach” means that teachers spend most of the time giving feedback for students’ presentation. In addition, teachers are using two kinds of teaching strategies. One is that teachers promote students’ discussion and improve critical thinking through well placed questions. The other is asking students to keep track of learning journal. Thirdly, a final report proposal is chosen as a summative assessment. A periodic summary report will serve as a informative assessment in the form of “research topic and research problems” and “literature review. Finally, according to students’ reading skills and comprehensive ability to understand the literatures wrote by foreign language, there are two kinds of considerations when teachers choose teaching resources. One is named “Foreign Language First Model” and the other is called “Complementary Model”. Based on the result, the study provides three suggestions to address the issues of lack of resources provided regarding the Library and Information Science educational materials and the graduate students’ lack of research know how. One is that teachers in different schools of department of Library and Information Science research method courses should share or work together to design teaching resources, so that teachers can concentrate on teaching. Another is that teachers who are responsible for research method related courses in the same department, such as “thesis writing course” or “qualitative research method course”, can work together to develop student’s learning research method map or curriculum map. The last one is setting requirements for students to attend the summer course before the new semester comes. This course is aimed at improving the understanding of basic knowledge about Library and Information science research history and characteristics and to have general information literacy. In conclusion, the study also proposes three areas for further study. One is using action research to explore the teaching process more deeply. Another is trying to understand how students’ reaction and learning effect about teachers’ preparation and implement of teaching. The last one is using the finding of this study to develop a framework of Library and Information Science research method course. The empirical data of this study will serve as the basis for future comparative studies. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-08T04:47:00Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-100-R96126001-1.pdf: 2770066 bytes, checksum: f8cc2d2c148899316ad8bd387e403f67 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2011 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 摘要 i
Abstract iii 目次 vi 圖次 viii 表次 ix 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究背景與動機 1 第二節 研究目的與研究問題 10 第三節 研究範圍與限制 11 第四節 名詞解釋 12 第二章 文獻回顧 15 第一節 研究對圖書資訊學領域的重要性 15 第二節 研究方法對圖書資訊學研究與實務工作之重要性 17 第三節 圖書資訊學研究方法發展回顧 22 第四節 影響圖書資訊學研究方法課程教學設計之因素 32 第三章 研究設計與實施 39 第一節 研究概念與研究架構 40 第二節 資料蒐集與分析 41 第三節 研究實施步驟 56 第四章 研究發現 59 第一節 教師對「研究方法課程」教學之理解、預備與決策 61 第二節 教學內容架構與教學內容施行模式 90 第三節 教學法、教學策略與教學評量的選用 131 第四節 教學資源的選用 182 第五節 教學上的困難與其相關因素 195 第五章 綜合討論 222 第一節 教師對「研究方法課程」教學之理解析論 223 第二節 研究方法教學現況與其影響因素析論 229 第三節 研究發現與其他相關研究析論 253 第六章 結論與建議 257 第一節 結論 257 第二節 建議 266 第三節 後續研究建議 268 參考文獻 271 附錄一 圖書資訊學研究方法教學經驗分享訪談大綱 (信件版) 281 附錄二 訪談推薦函與邀請函 282 附錄三 訪前預備資料 285 附錄四 譯碼表大綱圖示 290 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 從教師觀點探究圖書資訊學研究方法課程之教學現況與影響因素 | zh_TW |
dc.title | An Analysis of Library and Information Science Research Method Courses in Taiwan: From Instructors' Perspective | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 99-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 唐牧群,林維真 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 研究方法課程,教學設計,教學歷程,課程大綱, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | research method courses,teaching design,teaching process,syllabi, | en |
dc.relation.page | 292 | |
dc.rights.note | 未授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2011-08-16 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 文學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 圖書資訊學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 圖書資訊學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-100-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 2.71 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。