《OBE结果为导向教学体会(英文).doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《OBE结果为导向教学体会(英文).doc（6页珍藏版）》请在金锄头文库上搜索。
1、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）by Greg Feng August 31st 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 experie
2、nces 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,
3、 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 lear
4、ners will have gained as a result of learning. From the studentsperspective, 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 pro
5、duced 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
6、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 app
7、roach 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 preferen
8、ce 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
9、 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 XUS study is the literature describing high-quality learning in higher education and the research on the aspects of teaching- learni
10、ng 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
11、 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
12、 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
13、 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. S
14、ince 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 be
15、come 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
16、 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-
