進階搜尋


 
系統識別號 U0026-0812200915144658
論文名稱(中文) 探討「參與者為中心」教學模式之成效-以哈佛式個案教學為例
論文名稱(英文) The Effectiveness of “Participant-Centered” Teaching Model–An Empirical Study of Harvard's Case Method in Taiwan
校院名稱 成功大學
系所名稱(中) 工業與資訊管理學系碩博士班
系所名稱(英) Department of Industrial and Information Management
學年度 97
學期 2
出版年 98
研究生(中文) 吳上榕
研究生(英文) Wu-shang rung
學號 r3695112
學位類別 碩士
語文別 中文
論文頁數 72頁
口試委員 口試委員-龍仕璋
口試委員-陳仲儼
口試委員-黃玉枝
指導教授-呂執中
中文關鍵字 學習成效  哈佛式個案教學  參與者為中心  學習動機 
英文關鍵字 learning motive  HBS teaching  Participant–Centered  effectiveness 
學科別分類
中文摘要 在許多教學環境中常存在「學」與「用」間的差距,主要原因為學程內缺乏培養實際作決策與解決問題的能力,隨著知識與社會快速變化,此現象更為明顯。尤其是亞洲地區多以傳統式教學方式為主,其教學方式不易培養學生獨立思考與解決問題能力。「參與者為中心」 個案教學是由哈佛商學院 (Harvard Business School, HBS) 提出,其理念在於培養學生自行探索問題的答案,包含獨立思考、轉換知識與問題解決之能力,藉此提升學生的學習意願與投入程度。
回顧以往研究,雖已有不少有關個案教學應用於醫學、法律、管理教育上的相關研究,但大都針對個案教學之特性或優缺點作探討,較少針對「參與者為中心」之個案教學進行成效評估;又個案教學為近幾年才開始由哈佛商學院推廣到亞洲地區,其推動模式與原本之傳統的個案教學有些許的差異。許多研究也指出,動機與成效間,具有一定的相關性,因此如何提升學生之動機,實亦為推動個案教學值得思考的課題。
本研究以教育部「製商整合科技人才培育先導型計畫」參與學校為對象。研究結果顯示,採用哈佛式個案教學對於學生之學習動機與學習成效具有顯著且正向的影響。進一步藉由中介檢驗,統計數據發現哈佛式個案教學會透過學習動機強化進而影響學習成效,此亦隱含學習動機的重要性。而在學生背景差異性分析方面,學生會因為有無工作經驗,對個案教學之課程內容與課程管理認同及感受程度會有所差異,故往後課程設計上針對初始推行個案教學之對象,可以此分析結果作為參考。
總而言之,哈佛式個案教學為理論與實務連結之課程內容,且是互動性高的學習過程,加上有系統性之課程規劃,此教學模式的確會讓學生在學習時更加投入。而為了提升學生學習動機與成效,施行參與者為中心之個案教學時,在課程內容、學習過程與課程管理上必須搭配規劃,並考量學生背景特性以提升學習動機,如此會使個案教學發揮最好之效用。
英文摘要 In many colleges, there are always imbalances between acquiring knowledge and applying knowledge, the main reason is that the program lack enabling students to make practices on decisions and solving problems. Asian teaching style is usually traditional and this style does not cultivate students’ independent thinking and problem solving ability. “Participant - Centered” teaching is originally proposed by the Harvard Business School (HBS). The aim of the study is to enhance students’ abilities to explore answers for themselves, including independent thinking, knowledge transferring as well as problem solving. through their motivation and participation.
Prior studies have examined case studies in education of medical, law and management. Most researches focus on the advantages and disadvantages of case studies and less work is focused on the evaluation of how effective the Participant - Centered teaching is. Besides, Harvard’s case method is only introduced to Asia in these few years. The way it is carried out is also slightly different from traditional case learning. Furthermore, many researches point out that there is definitely certain degree of correlation between motivation and effectiveness, and should be important to explore for ways to enhance the learning motive of students in promoting Harvard’s case method.
The result has shown that Participant - Centered teaching significantly and positively contributes to the correlation between students’ learning motives and effectiveness of teaching. In addition, using mediator verification can find out that Harvard’s case method would influence the effectiveness of teaching through learning motive which implies the importance of learning motives. It is found out that Harvard’s case method would have different impacts on students with working experience and without working experience. Results of this study can be applied in course design or as references for potential case method practitioners.
In conclusion, Participant - Centered teaching which integrates theories and practical events as well as systematic course design would enable students to devote more focus into learning. In order to enhance the motive and effectiveness of leaning, the content of courses, the process of learning and the management of classes need to be carefully designed and controlled in order to achieve the best performance.
論文目次 摘 要 I
ABSTRACT II
誌 謝 III
目 錄 IV
表 目 錄 VI
圖 目 錄 VII
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究目的 2
第三節 研究範圍與限制 3
第四節 研究流程 3
第二章 文獻探討 6
第一節 哈佛式個案教學 6
第二節 學習動機之探討 20
第三節 學習成效 27
第四節 目前推動情況 32
第三章 研究方法與研究架構 35
第一節 研究架構與研究假說 35
第二節 研究變項操作型定義與衡量 37
第三節 問卷設計 38
第四節 資料來源 41
第五節 資料分析方法 41
第四章 資料分析 47
第一節 學生基本資料分析 47
第二節 哈佛式個案教學、學習動機與學習成效之平均數分析 48
第三節 信度與效度分析 50
第四節 個案教學、學習動機與成效之關係驗證 52
第五節 學生背景差異分析 58
第六節 小結 60
第五章 結論與建議 61
第一節 研究結論 61
第二節 研究建議 63
第三節 未來研究方向 65
參考文獻 66
附錄一 學生問卷 73
參考文獻 中文部分
1. 司徒達賢,2004,打造未來領導人 :管理教育與大學發展,台北市:天下雜誌。
2. 吳統雄,1985,「態度與行為研究的信度與效度:理論、應用、反省」,民意季刊,夏季號,29-53。
3. 張春興,1996,教育心理學,台北市:東華。
4. 張麗華,2002,管理個案教學導論,台北市:華泰。
5. 陳順宇,2007,結構方程模式AMOS操作,台北市:心理出版社。
6. 黃政傑,2002,教學原理,台北市:師大書苑有限公司。
7. 劉常勇,1998,「管理教育中的個案教學」,教育研究資訊,6卷2期,114。

英文部分
1. Abrantes, J. L., Seabra, C., & Lages, L. F. (2007). Pedagogical affect, student interest, and learning performance. Journal of Business Research, 60(9), 960-964.
2. Agrawal, D. K., & Khan, Q. M. (2008). A quantitative assessment of classroom teaching and learning in engineering education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 33(1), 85-103.
3. Ames, C. A. (1990). Motivation : What teachers need to know. Teachers College Record, 91(3), 409-421.
4. Atkinson, J. W., & Raynor, J. O. (1974). Motivation and achievement. Washington, DC: Winston.
5. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy - Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
6. Barnes, L. B., Christensen, C. R., & Hansen, A. J. (1994). Teaching and the case method. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press.
7. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator mediator variable distinction in social psychological-research - conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
8. Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning: A new paradigm for undergraduate education. change, 27(6), 13-25.
9. Bell, S. M. (2004). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know, 3rd edition. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 22(1), 72-75.
10. Bolliger, D. U., & Martindale, T. (2004). Key factors for determining student satisfaction in online course. International Journal of E-Learning, 3(1), 61-67.
11. Brokaw, A. J., & Merz, T. E. (2000). The effects of student behavior and preferred learning style on performance. Journal of Business Education, 1(1), 44-53.
12. Brush, T., & Saye, J. (2000). Implementation and evaluation of a student-centered learning unit: A case study. Etr&D-Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 79-100.
13. Cabrera, A. F., Colbeck, C. L., & Terenzini, P. T. (2001). Developing performance indicators for assessing classroom teaching practices and student learning: The case of engineering. Research in Higher Education, 42(3), 327-352.
14. Carlson, J. A., & Schodt, D. W. (1995). Economic instruction beyond the lecture: Case teaching and the learning of economic Theory. Journal of Economic Education, 26(1), p.17.
15. Carroll, J. B. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64, 723-733.
16. Chelimsky, E. (1997). Thoughts for a new evaluation society. Evaluation, 3(1), 97-118.
17. Clarke, I. I., Flaherty, T. B., & Mottner, S. (2001). Student perceptions of educational technology tools. Journal of Marketing Education, 23(3), 169-177.
18. Deci, E., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.
19. Deeter-Schmelz, R., D., Kennedy, K. N., & Ramsey, R. P. (2002). Enriching our understanding of student effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Education, 24(2), 114-124.
20. DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development theory and applications. London: SAGE.
21. Edelenbos, J., & Van Buuren, A. (2005). The learning evaluation - A theoretical and empirical exploration. Evaluation Review, 29(6), 591-612.
22. Flynn, A. E., & Klein, J. D. (2001). The influence of discussion groups in a case-based learning environment. Etr&D-Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(3), 71-86.
23. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
24. Fosnot, C. T. (1996). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, & practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
25. Frederickson, N., Reed, P., & Clifford, V. (2005). Evaluating web-supported learning versus lecture-based teaching: Quantitative and qualitative perspectives. Higher Education, 50(4), 645-664.
26. Frontczak, N. (1998). A paradigm for the selection, use and development of experiential learning activities in marketing education. Marketing Education Review, 8(3), 25-34.
27. Gainen, J., & Locatelli, P. (1995). Assessment for new curriculum: a guide for professional accounting programs. Sarasota: American Accounting Association.
28. Goldfinch, J. (1996). The effectiveness of school-type classes compared to the traditional lecture/tutorial method for teaching quantitative methods to business students. Studies in Higher Education, 21(2), 207-220.
29. Grunwald, H., & Peterson, M. W. (2003). Factors that promote faculty involvement in and satisfaction with institutional and classroom student assessment. Research in Higher Education, 44(2), 173-204.
30. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis. New Jersey: Pearson Education.
31. Hammond, J. S. (2002). Learning by the case method: Harvard Business School Press.
32. Harlen, W., & Crick, R. D. (2003). Testing and motivation for learning. Assessment in Education, 10(2), 169-207.
33. Harrington, H. L. (1995). Fostering reasoned Decisions: Case-based pedagogy and the professional development of teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(3), 203-214.
34. Henson, K. T. (2003). Foundations for learner-centered education: A knowledge base. education, 124(1), 5-16.
35. Honore, S. (2003). Learning to lead with e-learning. Training Journal, 16-22.
36. Hu, P. J., Hui, W., Clark, T. H. K., Milton, J., Ma, W., & Tam, K. Y. (2005). Examining e-learning effectiveness, outcomes and learning style: A longitudinal field experiment paper presented at the Pacific Asia Conference on Information System. Thailand: Bangkok
37. Ijab, M. T., Anwar, R., & Hamid, S. (2004). Teaching and learning of e-commerce courses via hybrid e-learning model in Unitar. Journal of Electronic Commerce in Organizations, 2(2), 91-93.
38. Isely, P., & Singh, H. (2005). Do higher grades lead to favorable student evaluations? Journal of Economic Education, 36(1), 29-42.
39. Kannan, V. R., & Tan, K. C. (2005). Just in time, total quality management, and supply chain management: understanding their linkages and impact on business performance. Omega, 33(2), 153-162.
40. Karns, G. (1993). Marketing student perceptions of learning activities: structure, preferences, and effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Education, 15(1), 3-10.
41. Kazmerski, V. A., & Blasko, D. G. (1999). Teaching observational research in introductory psychology: Computerized and lecture-based methods. Teaching of Psychology, 26(4), 295-298.
42. Keller. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models : An overview of their current status. Hillsdale. NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
43. Keller. (1987). Strategies for stimulating the motivation to learn. Perfomance & Instruction, 26(8), 1-7.
44. Kim, S., Phillips, W. R., Pinsky, L., Brock, D., Phillips, K., & Keary, J. (2006). A conceptual framework for developing teaching cases: a review and synthesis of the literature across disciplines. Medical Education, 40(9), 867-876.
45. Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1991). The evaluating training program. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Kaeher.
46. Klein, H. J., Noe, R. A., & Wang, C. W. (2006). Motivation to learn and course outcomes: The impact of delivery mode, learning goal orientation, and perceived barriers and enablers. Personnel Psychology, 59(3), 665-702.
47. Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press.
48. Kowalski, T. J. (1991). Case studies on educational administration. NY: Longman Publishing Group.
49. Kunter, M., Baumert, J., & Koller, O. (2007). Effective classroom management and the development of subject-related interest. Learning and Instruction, 17(5), 494-509.
50. Kuo, C.-C. (2004). The effectiveness of a case study method as compared to a traditional learning method in one business school in Taiwan (China). Lynn University.
51. L.Schuh, K. (2004). Learner-centered principles in teacher-centered practices? Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(8), 833-846.
52. Lammers, W. J., & Smith, S. M. (2008). Learning factors in the university classroom: Faculty and student perspectives. Teaching of Psychology, 35(2), 61-70.
53. Leong, P., Ho, C. P., & Saromines-Ganne, B. (2002). An empirical investigation of student satisfaction with Web-based courses. Paper presented at the Meeting of E-Learn 2002 World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, & Higher Education. VA: Norfolk
54. Lewis, J. (2001). Reflections on evaluation in practice. Evaluation, 7(3), 387-394.
55. Lin, Y. G., McKeachie, W. J., & Kim, Y. C. (2001). College student intrinsic and/or extrinsic motivation and learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 13(3), 251-258.
56. Lu, J., Yu, C. S., & Liu, C. (2003). Learning style, learning patterns, and learning performance in WebCT-based MIS course. Information & Management, 40, 497-507.
57. Lynn, L. E. (1999). Teaching and learning with cases: A guidebook. New York: Chatham House Publishers.
58. Lyu, J., Shieh, R., & Cheng, Y. (2007). A preliminary investigation on the performance of implementing participant-centered case teaching method in Taiwan. Paper presented at the 12th International Conference on ISO 9000 & TQM. Tai-Chung:
59. Macdonald, R. (2006). The use of evaluation to improve practice in learning and teaching. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 43(1), 3-13.
60. Maehr, M. L., & Midgley, C. (1991). Enhancing student motivation: A schoolwide approach. Educational Psychologist.
61. Marks, R. B. (2000). Determinants of student evaluations of global measures of instructor and course value. Journal of Marketing Education, 22(2), 108-119.
62. Mayhew, M. J., Grunwald, H. E., & Dey, E. L. (2005). Curriculum matters: Creating a positive climate for diversity from the student perspective. Research in Higher Education, 46(4), 389-412.
63. Mcaninch, A. C. (1989). The case method in teacher education: Analysis, rationale, and proposal. Michigan: A Bell & Howell.
64. McCombs, & Miller. (2007). Learner-centered classroom practices and assessments :maximizing student motivation, learning, and achievement Thousand Oaks, CA Corwin Press.
65. McCombs, & Whisler. (1997). The learner-centered classroom and school: Strategies for increasing student motivation and achievement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
66. Mcfarland, D., & Hamilton, D. (2005). Factors affecting student performance and satisfaction: Online versus traditional course delivery. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 46(2), 25-32.
67. McKeachie, W. J., & Svinicki, M. (2002). Teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for college and university teachers. Boston: Houghton Miffling Company.
68. Merseth, K. K. (1991). The early history of case-based instruction - insights for teacher-education today. Journal of Teacher Education, 42(4), 243-249.
69. Merseth, K. K. (1996). “ Cases and case methods in teacher education,” Handbook of Research on Teacher Education, . New York: Macmillan.
70. Paswan, K., & Young, J. (2002). Student evaluation of instructor: a nomological investigation using structural equation modeling. Journal of Marketing Education, 24(3), 193-202.
71. Patterson, F., & Hobley, S. (2003). A new way to evaluate learning and training. KM Review, 6(3).
72. Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 21-40.
73. Pike, G. R., Kuh, G. D., & Gonyea, R. M. (2003). The relationship between institutional mission and students' involvement and educational outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 44(2), 241-261.
74. Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667-686.
75. Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk., D. H. (2002). Motivation in education : Theory, research, and application. 2nd edn. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
76. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire(MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 801-813.
77. Pugh, K. J., & Bergin, D. A. (2006). Motivational influences on transfer. Educational Psychologist, 41(3), 147-160.
78. Raine-Eudy, R. (2000). Using structural equation modeling to test for differential reliability and validity: An empirical demonstration Structural Equation Modeling, 7(1), 124-141.
79. Ramseier, E. (2001). Motivation to learn as an outcome and determining factor of learning at school. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 16(3), 421-439.
80. Rangan, V. K. (1995). Choreographing a case class. Boston: Harvard Business School press.
81. Reeve, J., Nix, G., & Hamm, D. (2003). Testing models of the experience of self-determination in instrinsic motivation and the conundrum of choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 375-392.
82. Robson, C. (2000). Small-scale evaluation. London: Sage.
83. Rovai, A. P., & Barnum, K. T. (2003). On-line course effectiveness: An analysis of student interactions and perceptions of learning. Journal of Distance Education, 18(1), 57-73.
84. Schiefele, U. (1991). Interest, learning, and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 299–323.
85. Sobel, M. E. (1987). Direct and indirect effects in linear structural equation models. Sociological Methods & Research, 16(1), 155-176.
86. Spinath, B. (2005). Development and modification of motivation and self-regulation in school contexts: Introduction to the special issue. Learning and Instruction, 15(2), 85-86.
87. Tarnvik, A. (2007). Revival of the case method: a way to retain student-centred learning in a post-PBL era. Medical Teacher, 29(1), E32-E36.
88. Thompson, J., Licklider, B., & Jungst, S. (2003). Learner-centered teaching: Postsecondary strategies that promote "thinking like a professional". Theory into Practice, 42(2), 133-141.
89. Tynjälä, P. (1999). Towards expert knowledge? A comparison between a constructivist and a traditional learning environment in the university. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 357-442.
90. Vivas, J. F., & Allada, V. (2006). Enhancing engineering education using thematic case-based learning. International Journal of Engineering Education, 22(2), 236-246.
91. Vollmeyer, R., & Rheinberg, F. (2000). Does motivation affect performance via persistence? Learning and Instruction, 10(4), 293-309.
92. Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1993/1994). What helps students learn? Educational Leadership, 51(4), 74-79.
93. Wassermann, S. (1994). Introduction to case method teaching: a Guide to the Galax. New York: Teachers College Press.
94. Webb, H. W., Gill, G., & Poe, G. (2005). Teaching with the case method online: pure versus hybrid approaches. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 3(2), 223-250.
95. Woolfolk, A. E. (2004). Educational psychology. 9th edn. New York: Pearson.
96. Yilmaz, K. (2008). Social studies teachers' views of learner-centered instruction. European Journal of Teacher Education, 31(1), 35-53.
97. Young, M., Klemz, B., & Murphy, J. (2003). Enhancing learning outcomes: the effects of instructional technology, learning styles, instructional methods, and student behavior. Journal of Marketing Education, 25(2), 130-142.

網站部份
1. 哈佛商學院, http://www.hbs.edu/
2. 教育部個案教學推動網, http://ebrc.ntpu.edu.tw/~cases/
論文全文使用權限
  • 同意授權校內瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2009-07-08起公開。
  • 同意授權校外瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2009-07-08起公開。


  • 如您有疑問,請聯絡圖書館
    聯絡電話:(06)2757575#65773
    聯絡E-mail:etds@email.ncku.edu.tw