比較分析學生的批判性思考---利用學習歷程檔案推動大學生自主學習之延續研究

行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫 成果報告

比較分析學生的批判性思考：利用學習歷程檔案推動大學

生自主學習之延續研究

研究成果報告(精簡版)

計 畫 類 別 ： 個別型 計 畫 編 號 ： NSC 98-2410-H-151-018- 執 行 期 間 ： 98 年 08 月 01 日至 99 年 10 月 31 日 執 行 單 位 ： 國立高雄應用科技大學應用外語系 計 畫 主 持 人 ： 羅雅芬 共 同 主 持 人 ： 廖惠娟、盧玫錥 計畫參與人員： 碩士班研究生-兼任助理人員：黃姿蓉 碩士班研究生-兼任助理人員：王文君 大專生-兼任助理人員：葉慧雯 報 告 附 件 ： 出席國際會議研究心得報告及發表論文 處 理 方 式 ： 本計畫可公開查詢

中 華 民 國 100 年 01 月 21 日

中文摘要 本研究目的是調查台灣以英文為外語的大學生在讀後心得中批判性思考的 程度，以及批判性思考教學對於學生呈現批判性思考於寫作中之成效。研究問題 如下: 1. 以英文為外語的台灣大學生在讀後心得中呈現批判性思考的程度為何? 2. 以英文為外語的台灣大學生批判性思考的弱點及優點為何? 3. 批判性思考教學對於學生呈現批判性思考於寫作中之成效為何? 四十四位南臺灣某國立大學修習新聞英文課程的學生參加此研究，指定的閱 讀資料是一新聞報導。利用 Washington State University Guide to Rating Critical

Thinking 發展出的「閱讀新聞讀後感想評分標準」作為評分依據，此評分標準共 有六項目，並進行五週的批判性思考教學。最後，會有三位不同的評分者使用評 分表來評斷學生在批判性思考上的成效。 初期研究結果發現，受測學生在批判性思考訓練前，批判性思考總分偏低。 經過訓練後，儘管普遍來說學生的總分數還是偏低，但前後分數差異顯著，顯示 學生分數已有進步。學生的批判性思考能力的優點在於「對問題的清楚認知」、「針 對問題提出看法」，和「了解問題的可能結果」。而他們的弱點則是「提供佐證」 以及「提出不同觀點」的能力。 最後研究的結論顯示，儘管學生在批判性思考能力的分數上相較於受測前有 大幅的提升，他們的分數還是普遍偏低的。此外，研究結果可增加亞洲學生批判 性思考寫作能力之文獻。此次研究亦探討未解決的議題。 關鍵字: 批判性思考 評分標準 讀寫任務 以英文為外語

Abstract

The purpose of the study is to investigate the extent of critical thinking in Taiwanese EFL college students’ reading responses and the effect of critical thinking instructions on the students’ presentation of critical thinking. The research questions are:

1. To what extent do Taiwanese EFL college students present critical thinking in their reading responses?

2. What are the strengths and weaknesses of Taiwanese EFL college students’ critical thinking?

3. What are the effects of critical thinking instructions on students’ presentation of critical thinking in their reading responses?

The participants were the 44 students in the course, Journalistic English, in a national university in southern Taiwan. The source reading for participants' reading responses was an assigned English news report. A rubric for analyzing critical thinking in reading responses for news was developed based on the Washington State

University Guide to Rating Critical Thinking. The final version of the rubric contains

six categories. A five-week critical thinking instruction was provided to the

participants. Three independent raters rated the content of the participants’ reading responses using the rubric and a coding sheet.

The preliminary findings have shown that the total scores of all six categories show a low degree of critical thinking before the CT instruction. After theCT instructions, the students’ critical thinking scores still show a low degree of critical thinking. However, the score differences are significant (t=-9.37, p<.001),

demonstrating the participants’ critical thinking scores have improved. The strengths of the students’ instinctive critical thinking lie in their ability to identify the problem, presenting perspectives, and identification of consequences. The weaknesses include a lack of supporting evidence and failure to recognize alternative perspectives.

In conclusion, the students’ mean scores show a low level of critical thinking in their reading responses despite the scores have increased significantly. The results add to the literature that Asian students are able to present critical thinking in writing. Some unresolved issues emerged during the research process demand further attention in future research.

Introduction

Communicative competence has been a crucial goal of EFL education. To reach this goal, EFL teachers have tried to implement learning tasks that different language skills can be integrated. Among a variety of tasks, reading and writing are often combined to promote language learning as well as literacy skills. Reading-to-write tasks, especially response essays, can encourage students to engage in critical thinking which has been much needed in a world where knowledge is transmitted rapidly (Asención Delney, 2008; Dobson & Feak, 2001). Developing students’ critical thinking skills has been recognized as a common educational goal among educators around the world. While responsive writing tasks are commonly used, students do not automatically know how to approach them. Both L1 and L2 teachers often lament their students’ lack of critical thinking in their writing (Condon & Kelly-Riley, 2004; Lo, 2010b; Ruiz-Funes, 2001).

Past studies of investigating critical thinking in reading responses in the Asian context have found Asian students presented critical thinking (Alagozlu, 2007; Huang, 2009; Liaw, 2001, 2007; Lo, 2010a & b). However, researchers have found some Asian EFL students tend to present more descriptive, personal beliefs than analytical thinking in their reading responses (Alagozlu, 2007; Huang, 2009; Lo, 2010a & b). Condon and Kelly-Riley (2004) argue that writing acts as a vehicle for critical thinking, but writing is not itself critical thinking. Critical thinking needs to be defined and taught. Therefore, students can follow the instruction to produce critical thinking. Researchers have found that for L1 and L2 students alike, they all tend to spontaneously focus on the expressive mode of responses citing personal feeling and opinions (Dobson & Feak, 2001; Hirvela, 2004). If the teachers do not provide specific expectations for responses, they are likely to find their students express anything in responses so long as they demonstrate in some ways they have read the text (Lent, 1993). To move students from expressive writing to more analytical writing, teachers need to provide opportunities to practice the skills for connecting reading and writing (Dobson & Feak, 2001; Grabe, 2003).

Despite researchers have maintained that students need to be taught in order to present critical thinking in writing, little has been done to investigate the effect of critical thinking instructions. Therefore, the purpose of the study is to investigate the extent of students’ critical thinking and the effect of critical thinking instruction on EFL college students. The research questions are:

1. To what extent do Taiwanese EFL college students present critical thinking in their reading responses?

2. What are the strengths and weaknesses of Taiwanese EFL college students’ critical thinking?

3. What are the effects of critical thinking instructions on students’ presentation of critical thinking in their reading responses?

Methodology Participants

The participants were the students in the course, Journalistic English, in a national university in southern Taiwan. It was offered as a required course for all English majors at the university. The class met two hours every week. The

participants took the course in the two semesters of the academic year of 2009. In the first semester, the number of the students in the class was fifty-one. In the second semester, five of the students joined the exchange student program and studied in oversea sister schools. Two others dropped the class due to personal reasons. The number of the students dropped to forty-four. Due to the nature of the study, only the students who participated in the class in both semesters were selected as participants. Therefore, the final number of the participants was forty-four. All of them were all third-year English majors. I was the instructor of the course.

Source Reading

The source reading for participants' reading responses was an assigned English news report, Why lead-tainted Chinese goods slip through despite U.S. recalls, published on the Chicago Tribune on August 5, 2007.This news article is about the difficulties of inspecting lead-tainted Chinese goods pervasive in America and other nations because these products were sold to different companies with different brands. The report won a Pulitzer Prize later in 2008 for its in-depth and comprehensive coverage. The article was chosen because Taiwan has also experienced the similar safety concerns regarding products imported from China. Therefore, the effect of subject unfamiliarity could be minimized.

Rubric for Analyzing Critical Thinking in Reading Responses for News

A rubric for analyzing critical thinking in reading responses for news was developed based on the Washington State University Guide to Rating Critical

Thinking (Condon & Kelly-Riley, 2004). The rubric was different from the original Guide by the following revisions. First, the wording for each category was revised to

reflect the nature of the study. Second, the operational definition of each category was revised based on assessing students’ writing samples in the present study and the findings in the past studies (Lo, 2010b & c). Third, the element, identifying key assumptions, was removed from the rubric. Theoretically, no stated or underlying assumptions should be presented in the news except for opinion articles such as

editorials or columns. The final version of the rubric contained six categories (Appendix Two), with six-point scale for each category adapted from the Guide.

Critical Thinking (CT) Instructions

The CT instructions lasted five weeks. The instructor explained the concept of critical thinking to the participants first. Next, the definitions of each element in the rubric were provided as handouts for the participants. The definitions were explained to the participants with examples. Modeling, scaffolding, and discussion were offered to the students.

Data Analysis

The content of the participants’ reading responses was rated by three

independent raters against the rubric. The three independent raters were two graduate assistants and the researcher. The scoring rubric and a coding sheet were emailed to the assistants a few days before the training session. After the training, the raters spent about four weeks to rate all the 44 pre-instruction responses and 44 post-instruction responses. The inter-rater reliability for the reported total scores was calculated with Cronbach alpha for multiple raters (Brown, Glasswell & Harland, 2004). The alpha coefficient was .90 for pre-instruction entries and .89 for post-instruction entries. The students could score a maximum of 36 points if they had met all of these criteria. The minimum points were 6 if the students showed no critical thinking at all.

A series of paired T-tests were performed to examine the effects of CT

instructions on the participants’ critical thinking scores. In addition to using the rubric to analyze students’ scores of critical thinking, content analysis was used to show the quality of the students’ critical thinking for each element of the rubric before and after the CT instructions.

Preliminary Findings Critical Thinking Scores

The total scores of all six categories show a low degree of critical thinking before the CT instruction, with the highest score at 18.33 and the lowest score at 8

(Mean=12.20, SD=2.25) at a six-point scale. After theCT instructions, the students’ critical thinking scores still show a low degree of critical thinking, with the highest score at 21.33 and the lowest score at 10 (Mean=15.10, SD=2.69). However, the difference of the scores is significant (t=-9.37, p<.001).The scores for each element before and after CT instructions are presented in Table 1 to show the students’ strengths and weaknesses for specific elements of critical thinking. Before the CT instructions, the highest mean score is in the dimension of identification of the

problem or issue in the news report (2.60, SD=.66), followed by presenting a clear perspective and recognizing the context(s) (2.28, SD=.71). The relative low mean scores are found in the elements of considering evidence/facts (1.55, SD=.45) and recognizing other perspectives (1.30, SD=.45). After the CT instructions, the scores for each individual element have improved significantly. The highest score is still in the dimension of identification of the problem or issue in the news report (2.93, SD=.70). The score difference before and after CT instructions (-.33) is significant (t=-4.45, p<.001). The lowest scores is in the element of consideration of

evidence/facts (1.74, SD=.57). The score difference before and after CT instructions (-.44) is also significant (t=-6.88, p<.001).

Table 1

Critical Thinking Mean Scores, Standard Deviation, and Paired-t Statistics before and after Critical Thinking Instructions by Elements

Pre-CT instruction

Post-CT instruction

Elements M SD M SD t p

Identification of a problem or issue 2.60 0.66 2.93 0.70 -4.54 .000*** Presentation of a clear perspective 2.28 0.71 2.90 0.83 -5.07 .000*** Recognition of other perspectives 1.30 0.45 1.74 0.57 -6.88 .000*** Identification of the context(s) 2.55 0.94 3.14 0.93 -4.95 .000*** Consideration of evidence/facts 1.55 0.45 1.79 0.51 -3.49 .001*** Identification of potential consequences 1.92 0.81 2.58 0.68 -5.08 .000*** Mean scores of all six elements 2.03 0.38 2.51 0.44 -9.37 .000***

***p<.001

Before the Ct instructions, the mean number of elements shown in the participants’ reading responses is 4.28. The mean has increased to 4.85 after the instructions, indicating the participants showed more elements in their reading

responses. The prevalence of the individual elements can be seen in the percentage of the students’ presentation of each element before and after the instructions (Table 2). Except for the element of identification of a problem or issue, the percentages of all the elements have increased. Before the instructions, the most presented element is the identification of a problem or issue. About 98.5 percent of the students presented the

element. The percentage has remained unchanged after the instructions. The second most presented element is presentation of a clear perspective (82.6%). The percentage has increased to 95.5 percent. The least presented before the instructions is the

recognition of other perspectives (32.2%). The percentage has increased significantly to 58 percent after the instructions. Before the instructions, the second least presented element is the consideration of evidence/facts (40%). The percentage has increased to 50.8 percent after the instructions; however, it became the least presented element. The results shown in Table 1 and 2 indicate that the participants’ presentation of critical thinking scores has improved not only in the depth (scores) but also in the prevalence (percentage). The results indicate the participants have become more aware of the elements of critical thinking after the instructions. Therefore, they were able to present more elements in their responses. In addition, they have become more adept in presenting the elements by showing more thinking in their responses. As a result, their critical thing scores have improved.

Table 2

Percentage of Participants’ Presentation of Critical Thinking before and after CT Instructions by Elements

Pre-CT instruction Post-CT instruction Elements Percentage Percentage Identification of a problem or issue 98.5 98.5 Presentation of a clear perspective 82.6 95.5 Recognition of other perspectives 32.2 58.0 Identification of the context(s) 78.0 94.0 Consideration of evidence/facts 40.0 50.8 Identification of potential consequences 61.4 87.8

Content Analysis

Due to the length limitation of the report, the researcher does not intend to show students’ segments of reading responses to demonstrate their presentation of critical thinking by elements. The preliminary findings show that, collectively, the number of words of the participants’ writing has increased. The presentation of the

elements—the identification of the context(s) and the identification of potential consequences—has improved. However, the presentation of the elements with the

lower scores—the recognition of other perspectives and the consideration of evidence/facts—show little critical thinking despite the scores have been improved after the instructions.

Discussion

The results have provided an answer to the first research question concerning the extent of Taiwanese EFL students’ critical thinking in their reading responses. Taken collectively, the students’ mean scores show a low level of critical thinking in their reading responses. Despite the scores have increased significantly, the overall critical thinking scores are still low. Similar to the findings in the literature, the students in the study presented more descriptive and expressive rather analytical writing with evidence of critical thinking even instructions had been provided. The possible explanation could be the nature of reading responses. Researchers have found that for L1 and L2 students alike, they all tend to spontaneously focus on the

expressive mode of responses citing personal feeling and opinions (Dobson & Feak, 2001; Hirvela, 2004). To move students from expressive writing to more analytical writing, teachers need to provide more than one cycle of CT instructions.

Consistent with the findings in the previous studies (Lo, 2010c; Puthikanon, 2009), the strength the students have shown is in the first element—identifying problem or issue. The presentation of this element demonstrates that the students could identify the most relevant content in the source reading and transferred the information into writing (Hirvela, 2004). The other strength is that students were capable of presenting their view points. One of the relative weak areas of critical thinking in the students’ presentations is the use of evidence. The majority of the students failed to use evidence to support their claims. For those who cited the evidence from the source reading, they mostly repeated the information without any further discussion. The other weakness is to recognize alternative perspectives. Most of the students focused on their own perspectives. In both L1 and L2 contexts,

researchers have found students tend to fail to include counterarguments or other sides of the opinions (Perkins, Farady & Bushey, 1991; Qin & Karabacak, 2010). The explanations include students’ unawareness of the need to present alternative

perspectives to reinforce their own views (Nussbaum & Kardash, 2005), lack of high cognitive skills (Qin & Karabacak, 2010), and the lack of relative advanced

knowledge for a particular issue.

The results have shown that the CT instructions have a positive effect on students’ presentation of critical thinking both in the depth and the prevalence. More analyses of how students with different proficiency levels differ in their critical thinking scores before and after the instructions are still under way.

Conclusion and Implications

In sum, the preliminary findings have shown that the most L2 students’ reading responses contained critical thinking. The strengths of the students’ instinctive critical thinking lie in their ability to identify the problem, presenting perspectives, and identification of consequences. The weaknesses include a lack of supporting evidence and failure to recognize alternative perspectives. The results add to the literature that Asian students are able to present critical thinking in writing. Some unresolved issues emerged during the research process demand further attention in future research. More research is needed to investigate the effects of a variety of variables on critical thinking in reading responses. Some of the variables have been shown to have effects on critical thinking and on the quality of writing, such as writers’ characteristics, L2 proficiency, reading/writing strategies, and writing process (e.g. Bosher, 1998; Moore, 1995; Plakans, 2008, 2009; Tierney et al., 1989; You, 2001).

References

Alagozlu, N. (2007). Critical thinking and voice in EFL writing. Asian EFL Journal,

9(3), 118-136.

Asención Delney, Y. (2008). Investigating the reading-to-write construct. Journal of

English for Academic Purposes, 7(3), 140-150.

Bosher, S. (1998). The composing process of three Southeast Asian writers a the post-secondary level: An exploratory study. Journal of Second Language

Writing, 7(2), 205-241.

Brown, G.. T. L., Glasswell, K., & Harland, D. (2004). Accuracy in the scoring of writing: Studies of reliability and validity using a New Zealand writing assessment system. Assessing Writing, 9, 105-121.

Condon, W., & Kelly-Riley, D. (2004). Assessing and teaching what we value: The relationship between college-level writing and critical thinking abilities.

Assessing Writing, 9, 56-75.

Dobson, B., & Feak, C. (2001). A cognitive modeling approach to teaching critique writing to nonnative speakers. In D. Belcher & A. Hirvela (Eds.), Linking

literacies: Perspectives on L2 reading-writing connections (pp.186-199). Ann

Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

Grabe, W. (2003). Reading and writing relations: Second language perspectives on research and practice. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second

language writing (pp. 242-262). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

instruction. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Huang, S. (2009). EFL reading through a critical literacy perspective. English

Teaching and Learning, 33(3), 51-93.

Lent, R. (1993). “I can relate to that …”: Reading and responding in the writing classroom. College Composition and Communication, 44, 232-240. Liaw, M. (2001). Exploring literary responses in an EFL classroom. Foreign

Language Annals, 34(1), 35-44.

Liaw, M. (2007). Content-based reading and writing for critical thinking skills in an EFL context. English Teaching and Learning, 31(2), 45-87.

Lo, Y. (2010a). Implementing reflective portfolios for promoting autonomous learning among EFL college students in Taiwan. Language Teaching Research, 14(1), 77-95.

Lo, Y. (2010b). Assessing critical reflection in Asian students’ portfolios: An exploratory study. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 19(2), 347-355. Lo, Y. (2010c). EFL college students’ perceived difficulties of presenting critical

thinking in portfolios. The proceedings of the 27th International Conference on English Learning and Teaching in the ROC, 347-361. National Kaohsiung

Normal University, Taiwan.

Moore, R. A. (1995). The relationship between critical thinking, global English

proficiency, writing, and academic development for 60 Malaysian second language learners. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.

Nussbaum, E. M., & Kardash, C. (2005). The effects of goal instructions and text on the generation of counterarguments during writing. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 97(2), 157-169.

Perkins, D., Farady, M., & Bushey, B. (1991). Everyday reasoning and the roots of intelligence. In J. F. Voss, D. N. Perkins & J. W. Segal (Eds.), Informal

reasoning and education (pp. 83-106). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Plakans, L. (2008). Comparing composing processes in writing-only and reading-to-write test tasks. Assessing Writing, 13(2), 111-129.

Plakans, L. (2009). The role of reading strategies in integrated L2 writing tasks.

Journal of English for Academic Purposes 8(1), 252-266.

Puthikanon, N. (2009). Examining critical thinking and language use through the use of WebQuest in an EFL reading class. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.

Qin, J., & Karabacak, E. (2010). The analysis of Toulmin elements in Chinese EFL university argumentative writing. System, 38 (3), 444-456.

Ruiz-Funes, M. (2001). Task representation in foreign language reading-to-write.

Tierney, R., Soter, A., O’Flavahan, J., & McGinley, W. (1989). The effect of reading and writing upon thinking critically. Reading Research Quarterly, 24(2), 134-73. You, Y. (2001). To write well is to think clearly: Suggestions for teaching EFL writers

how to write logically. The Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on

國科會補助專題研究計畫項下出席國際學術會議心得報告

日期： 98 年 12 月 10 日

計畫編號

NSC 98-2410-H-151-018

計畫名稱

比較分析學生的批判性思考：利用學習歷程檔案推動大學生自主學習 之延續研究

出國人員姓名

羅雅芬

服務機

構及職

稱

國立高雄應用科技大學

會議時間

98 年 11 月 20

至

98 年 11 月 23

日

會議地

點

日本 靜岡市

會議名稱

(中文)

The 35th Annual JALT International Conference on Language teaching and Learning

(英文)

日本第 35 屆 JALT 國際語言教學研討會

發表論文題目

(中文)

利用學習歷程檔案推動自主學習

(英文)

Reflective Portfolios for Autonomous Learning

一、參加會議經過

此次會議舉行日期從 11 月 20 至 11 月 23 日，為期 3 天。主辦單位為日本語文教師協會， 會議主題為 “The Teaching-Learning Dialogue: An Active Mirror ＂本報告人之論文發表安排於

11 月 21 日下午 5:45。20 日為 local chapter 之會議。21、22 日參加數場論文發表。

二、與會心得

兩位與會者給予報告人的建議為：Portfolios 的篇數減少，以減輕批改負擔。另外可依學生 程度分組，比較學生對自主學習的態度與成果。報告人參加場次大多與 reflection 和 autonomous learning 相關。但場地各樓層隔間複雜，論文發表分散於太多樓層，加上標示不清，許多與會 者忙於尋找地點，加上沒有特定空間與時間提供與會者交流，這次會議並無很多機會與其他學 者互動。

三、考察參觀活動(無是項活動者略)：

無參觀活動

四、建議:

提供特定空間與時間給予與會者社交與交流的機會。

五、攜回資料名稱及內容:

Conference Handbook

98 年度專題研究計畫研究成果彙整表

計畫主持人：羅雅芬 計畫編號： 98-2410-H-151-018-計畫名稱：比較分析學生的批判性思考：利用學習歷程檔案推動大學生自主學習之延續研究 量化 成果項目 實際已達成 數（被接受 或已發表） 預期總達成 數(含實際已 達成數) 本計畫實 際貢獻百 分比 單位 備 註 （ 質 化 說 明：如 數 個 計 畫 共 同 成 果、成 果 列 為 該 期 刊 之 封 面 故 事 ... 等） 期刊論文 0 0 100% 研究報告/技術報告 0 0 100% 研討會論文 1 0 100% 篇 論文著作 專書 1 0 100% 專書章節一章 申請中件數 0 0 100% 專利 已獲得件數 0 0 100% 件 件數 0 0 100% 件 技術移轉 權利金 0 0 100% 千元 碩士生 0 0 100% 博士生 0 0 100% 博士後研究員 0 0 100% 國內 參與計畫人力 （本國籍） 專任助理 0 0 100% 人次 期刊論文 0 0 100% 研究報告/技術報告 0 0 100% 研討會論文 1 0 100% 篇 論文著作 專書 0 0 100% 章/本 申請中件數 0 0 100% 專利 已獲得件數 0 0 100% 件 件數 0 0 100% 件 技術移轉 權利金 0 0 100% 千元 碩士生 0 0 100% 博士生 0 0 100% 博士後研究員 0 0 100% 國外 參與計畫人力 （外國籍） 專任助理 0 0 100% 人次

其他成果

(

無法以量化表達之成 果如辦理學術活動、獲 得獎項、重要國際合 作、研究成果國際影響 力及其他協助產業技 術發展之具體效益事 項等，請以文字敘述填 列。) 無 成果項目 量化 名稱或內容性質簡述 測驗工具(含質性與量性) 0 課程/模組 0 電腦及網路系統或工具 0 教材 0 舉辦之活動/競賽 0 研討會/工作坊 0 電子報、網站 0 科 教 處 計 畫 加 填 項 目 計畫成果推廣之參與（閱聽）人數 0

國科會補助專題研究計畫成果報告自評表

請就研究內容與原計畫相符程度、達成預期目標情況、研究成果之學術或應用價

值（簡要敘述成果所代表之意義、價值、影響或進一步發展之可能性）

、是否適

合在學術期刊發表或申請專利、主要發現或其他有關價值等，作一綜合評估。

1. 請就研究內容與原計畫相符程度、達成預期目標情況作一綜合評估

■達成目標

□未達成目標（請說明，以 100 字為限）

□實驗失敗

□因故實驗中斷

□其他原因

說明：

2. 研究成果在學術期刊發表或申請專利等情形：

論文：■已發表 □未發表之文稿 □撰寫中 □無

專利：□已獲得 □申請中 ■無

技轉：□已技轉 □洽談中 ■無

其他：（以 100 字為限）

3. 請依學術成就、技術創新、社會影響等方面，評估研究成果之學術或應用價

值（簡要敘述成果所代表之意義、價值、影響或進一步發展之可能性）（以

500 字為限）

此計畫案已產出 1.一篇國內會議論文，2. 一篇國外會議論文，3.一篇專書章節， 4.另外 還有一專書正撰寫中。 研究成果可提供學者及教師對台灣大學生批判性思考能力的了解， 增加相關文獻的數量。 研究結果亦可供欲提升學生批判性思考能力的教師參考，批判性 思考能力是大學生應具備的核心能力，了解學生學習批判性思考所可能遭遇的困境，可適 時提供協助。研究結果亦可供欲研究學生批判性思考能力的學者參考 引發更多相關研究。