| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立新竹教育大學 === 美勞教育學系碩士班 === 94 === Abstract
The main purposes of this study aim to gain understanding of the effects, which two different teaching strategies of issues-centered approach, “decision-making” and “structured controversy”, place on critical thinking of elementary school students and further, to gain understanding of their viewpoints of these two strategies, and in turn, this study serve as a reference to the integration of issues-centered approach into the domain of Arts and Humanities.
Sixty-nine fifth-graders of San-Min Elementary School in Hsin Chu City are sampled as participants in this study. In order to investigate the difference between these two strategies, the participants in the experiments are divided into two groups: thirty-five participants in (A) group are instructed with the “decision-making” teaching strategy and the other thirty-four participants in (B) group with the “structured controversy.” Through nine-week experiment, by means of the employed instruments, Critical Thinking Test -- Level I and The Questionnaire of Dispositions Toward Critical Thinking, edited by Yu-chu Yeh, the participants are post-tested so as to be compared and analyzed with one-sample T-test and One-Way ANOVA. After that, coupled with the worksheets and issues-centered approach questionnaire, the results are expected to reflect the perspectives and opinions of the participants in the matter of these two different strategies.
The findings in the study exhibit as the following:
1. No significant difference was found on the participants’ critical thinking between (A) group and (B) group instructed respectively with “decision-making” and “structured controversy” strategy.
2. Significant differences were found on the ability of “recognition hypothesis” and “evaluation”; however, no significant difference on the ability of “induction” “deduction” and “explanation” between (A) group and (B) group instructed respectively with “decision-making” and “structured controversy” strategy.
3. No significant difference was found on the participants’ dispositions toward critical thinking between (A) group and (B) group instructed respectively with “decision-making” and “structured controversy” strategy.
4. In terms of the participants with low and middle social economics status (SES), significant differences were found on the ability of “recognition hypothesis” between “decision-making” and “structured controversy” strategy.
5. In terms of the participants in lower and middle rank in academic performance, compared with “decision-making” strategy, significant differences were found on the ability of “recognition hypothesis” of “structured controversy” strategy. In terms of the participants in middle rank of the subject, Social Study, significant differences were found on the ability of “evaluation” between “decision-making” and “structured controversy” strategy.
6. In terms of the participants of male and female, significant differences were found on the ability of “recognition hypothesis” between “decision-making” and “structured controversy” strategy. In terms of males, significant differences were found on the ability of “evaluation” between “decision-making” and “structured controversy” strategy.
7. The participants offer a positive evaluation of “decision-making” and “structured controversy” strategy of issues-centered approach.
Based upon the research and findings mentioned above, a few suggestions are proposed for teaching and future research.
|
|---|
