OBE结果为导向教学体会(英文)

OBE结果为导向教学体会(英文) 以学习成果为导向的体会 冯天泽 ,芬兰阿尔托大学教学培训体会, stby Greg Feng August 31 2012 I spent much time reading three papers respectively written by Xu, R. 2004. “Chinese mainland students? experiences of teaching and learning at a Chinese university”, Parpala et al. (2010). “Students? approaches to learning and their experiences of the teaching-learning environment in different disciplines” and Allan, J. 1996. “Learning outcomes in Higher Education. Studies in Higher Education” . After reading these three paper I think it important to clarify briefly three terms which I often come across when reading “Outcome learning, surface and deep learning approaches: To my understanding an “outcome”, which is different from”aim” or “objective” is simply a result or consequence of an action or process. A learning outcome is what results from a learning process. Intended learning outcomes are statements that predict what learners will have gained as a result of learning. From the students’ perspective, the outcomes approach communicates what they are expected to be able to do and the criteria that will be used to assess them. In outcome-based learning, all school programs and instructional efforts are designed to have produced specific, lasting results in students by the time they leave school. According to William G. Spady (1994), outcome-based education (OBE) means "clearly focusing and organizing everything in an educational system around what is essential for all students to be able to do successfully at the end of their learning experiences." In Parpala and Xu, R „s paper , deep and surface learning approaches are mentioned . The two approaches are derived from original empirical research by Marton and since elaborated by Ramsden (1992), Biggs (1987, 1993) and Entwistle (1981). Students applying a surface approach concentrate on the text itself, whereas those aiming at a deeper level focus on the meaning of the text. Although learners may be classified as deep or surface, they are not attributes of individuals: one person may use both approaches at different times, although she or he may have a preference for one or the other. They correlate fairly closely with motivation: deep with intrinsic motivation and surface with extrinsic, but they are not necessarily the same thing. Either approach can be adopted by a person with either motivation. When reading the two articles written by Xu, R. (2004) and Parpala et al. (2010) I found out that the two papers present different viewpoints to the approaches to learning. Firstly, from the cultural perspective point of view XU?S study is the literature describing high-quality learning in higher education and the research on the aspects of teaching- learning environments that students may perceive more directly, and which therefore affects their learning. It attempts to provide a context for a series of reflections on the ways in which current teaching-learning practices in the Chinese higher education system might be improved by keeping students and teaching-learning environments at the center such as what the learner is trying to achieve; how the learner is carrying out the learning task; and, how the learner monitors his/her learning processes. Such a view of education helps to shape students’ views of themselves. To many Chinese students the causes of academic success/failure were those internal and controllable factors, such as efforts and study skills, so it might not be a surprise to find Chinese students were more autonomous in their learning. In other words, Chinese students could learn effectively without the constant presence or intervention of a teacher by being self-responsible, self-reliant and/or self-organized. Such a discussion has been linked to the dimension of individualism-collectivism, which has frequently been used to explain the kinds of collaborations on studying that have been found among Chinese students. Since study after study of cooperative learning and small group learning shows the efficiency and effectiveness of collaborative learning in relation to deeper learning strategies and outcomes～the relationships between students that are more likely to take on a somewhat collectivist character have become a popular topic in research into Chinese learners. However, it has been found that Chinese students were more active in groups in an informal environment, i.e. outside of the classroom, than in the group discussions. Chinese students were much more likely to attribute academic success primarily to effort rather than to both effort and ability. To many Chinese students the causes of academic success/failure were those internal and controllable factors, such as efforts and study skills (Salili, 1996), so it might not be a surprise to find Chinese students were more autonomous in their learning. In other words, Chinese students could learn effectively without the constant presence or intervention of a teacher by being self-responsible, self-reliant and/or self-organized. In contrast Anna Párpala majorly concentrates on the relationship between the clusters and both the relationship between the clusters and the disciplines of the students and their perceptions of the teaching-learning environment. The results and conclusions of the research show that there were some differences in students? perceptions of the teaching-learning environment in the different faculties, and meanwhile, it appears that there is disciplinary variation in approaches to learning. Furthermore, the results indicate that both approaches to learning and the discipline have an effect on students' experiences of the teaching- learning environment. In general students in the sciences and applied sciences are more inclined to adopt a surface approach to leaming, whereas those in the humanities and social sciences are more inclined to adopt a deep approach to learning. It thus seems that there is evidence that the production of knowledge, as well as the means of communication, vary in different disciplines, and during their university years students tacitly learn the norms of their disciplinary culture . Disciplines have their own categories of thought, which provide members of the same academic field with shared concepts of theories, methods, techniques, and problems. In my point of view, I favor more of Xu?s point of view as it is is easier to understand and convenient to carry out in my course design than Anna Párpala?s. To tell the truth, I am now still at a loss as how to design a course from the disciplinary point of view. To my understanding , the idea of learning outcomes (as described by Allan 1996, or in other words, the outcome based teaching and learning lies in learning. In teaching what ultimately matters is not what is taught, but what is learned. Therefore teachers should do well to set their course objectives in terms of learning outcomes. What we teach and how we teach and how we assess, ought to be aligned with the intended learning outcomes. So in this way the judgment of teaching quality should be assessed by the quality of learning. For instance, when I was designing and teaching Newspaper English course I did in the traditional way. I designed course of objectives to examine the role that language plays in text. In particular the objectives include learning as a language, learning through language and learning about language. All in all , I set up the teaching aim lay emphasis on the language itself, neglecting the knowledge background of the newspaper. So I was used to spending much time by way of lecture to discuss grammatical features rather than the subject matter of the text. Now I come to realize after reading the three academic papers. I now realize that the intended learning outcomes should do like this: at the end of the course, I should expect students to use English effectively in speaking and reading about the current events, and written news reports in English accurately; analyze and discuss news reports and commentaries critically and in an informed manner; develop a broad acquaintance with current events and issues (both local and international) in various spheres (political, economic, social, cultural, moral, educational, etc.). To achieve these outcomes students will get extensive opportunities to read and listen to, as well as discuss and write about current events both local and worldwide, including not only political and economic events but developments in education, the arts, science and technology, society, lifestyle, sports etc. As how to assess students outcomes, I should give students some homework to do concerning the course, e.g. write some essays, announce news orally in classroom to the audience etc. Lastly I should make an assessment about the course. For instance, coursework can take up the larger percentage for class performance, say, 70%.; the rest 30% is left for the final test. Coursework can include writing essays, a class debate and oral presentation for the purpose of testing student?s on the spot his ability in using language as well as the range of knowledge. So it pushes students to read or speak more in daily life. A final test can include reading test, analyzing news reports from newspapers and magazines, like New York Times or Fortune etc to test student?s ability to comprehend and interpret current events or to air their own opinions. If the student has developed the ability to express his own thoughts, concerning home and world affairs both in written and oral forms, my newspaper English can be regarded as a success.