分组内容简介
|
以行求知之旅 ─ 转变中的实践与思维
|
小学校本课程发展组
|
时间过得真快!转眼间,我们已踏进了为小学提供校本专业支援服务的第十个年头。在与老师紧密协作的过程中,我们深深感受到他们对教育的承担,更珍惜大家在提升学生学习成效这共同目标上所付出的时间和心力。这些经歷和感受驱使我们不断思考「到校支援服务」的意义、支援服务的角色以及教师知識的产生和建构等问题。除了參考有关的教育研究文献外,我们不断搜集教师的意見,有系统地观察共同备课会议和课堂教学的变化,并利用这些數据,进行自评和反思。
一直以來,校本支援服务的目标都十分明确:「提升教师的专业能量,促进学与教的效能」。不过,随着不同阶段的发展步伐,支援的针对点便各有不同。在提供校本专业支援服务的初期,为了回应学校解决教学问题的诉求,大家都很容易会把「教师专业能量」的提升,简单地诠释为「教学技术」的支援。因此,初期的共同备课会,多集中在「备」教材、「备」教法、「备」活动等方面。支援者与教师的共同目标,很多时就落在设计一些步骤式的教案和教材配套上。
然而,当检讨到校支援服务的成效时,我们和一些老师都察觉到「共同备课」与「课堂实践」之间的差距。于是,在得到教师的同意下,我们开始走进课室进行观察。经验告诉我们:如果大家的注意力仍然只集中在「技术」的层面,观课的焦点便很自然落在教师身上,包括秩序管理、教材使用和提问技巧等。结果,这些「评课式」的观察,既将复杂的课堂问题探讨缩窄到「教学技术」这单一范畴,更将支援者与教师的关系塑造成「评核者」与「被评核者」。
我们无意低估「教学技巧」对课堂学习的重要性。相反,作为教师的支援者,我们需要从多角度去探究和了解这些重要知識的产生、掌握和使用,才能确保它们能有效解决教学问题。然而,有别于一些工业制造过程,教育是人影响人的复杂过程;教学不是单向的传递,而是多元化的互动。在这样一个动态而多变的课堂环境中, 我们相信教师所需要的知識与一般以「技术为本」的知识 (technical-based knowledge)有很大分别。
综观最近二十多年的教育研究文献,发现不少学者(1)以「反思型实践者」 (reflective practitioner)來形容教师。他们认为教师专业知識的产生,源于教师在教学过程的实际经验和他们对这些经验的总结、反思和再探究。这种不断探究和反思的能力,正是來自教师对教育专业的责任感和承担。在反思的过程中,教师们可以用更多角度去检讨、分析和判断一些在实际环境中遇到的疑难和解决方法。这些学习经歷正是教师建构实践知識 (practical knowledge) 的重要歷程。在一个有关「专家教师」(expert teachers)的研究里,学者(2)更指出「专家教师」的特色,不单在解决疑难的能力,而是他们樂意对一些看似没有疑难的现象进行探究(problematizing the unproblematic)。这种求真的精神和态度,正是教育的意义和价值。
这些启示帮助我们反思到校支援者的角色、任务和意义,也开拓了我们支援教师的空间。共同备课和观课的目的不光是从技术的层面,去提升教师设计某个教学活动的技巧(instructional effectiveness),而是与他们共同面对一些实际的教学问题,在真切的环境中分析和解决问题,总结经验,从而提升彼此的实践智慧(practical wisdom)。从2001 年开始,我们借用了社会科学的研究方法和工具,比较有系统地搜集学生学习的证据,特别是他们在课室的对话和课堂外的习作。通过细致的分析和诠释,支援者和教师更能掌握学生的学习需要、学习经歷和成果。这些重要的數据既验证了我们与教师对教学的一些假设,也启发了我们对学生学习一些盲点再作探讨。这种以「數据为主导」(data-driven)及以「证据为本」(evidence-based)的支援方法,不单提升了教师的课程组织及教学技巧,更加强了他们的敏觉力、判断力、解决问题及面对问题的能力。
为了让教师们可以分享这些从实际课堂经验中建构的教学知識,我们在每年的三、四月都会以「以行求知」为题举办经验分享会。举办分享会的目的不在展示一些学校的「良好实践」,让与会者可以直接采用,因为每间学校的具体情况不同,在甲校行之有效的方法,未必能够在乙校成功实施。事实上,在一个知識不断涌现和快速更新的时代,我们不可能再相信光从一些「范本」或「范例」中便可得到知識。只有通过不断的探索、分析和反思问题,才能在已有的经验上建构新知,才是真正的掌握知識的钥匙。因此,我们鼓勵分享经验的老师们不单是平面地描述或报告某个有效的教学设计和策略,更要深入分析教学过程,从多角度验证教学數据,怀着批判精神进行探究和反思自己的教学实践。
或者有人会担心,坦诚的自我批评,有可能被断章取义,又或被错误理解。因此,教师之间的互相信任、认真开放的态度对于建立专业对谈和集体反思的文化至为重要。有学者(3)认为这种态度正是來自教师对教育的承担和道德价值。我们期望小学校本课程发展组举办的经验分享会可以成为教师开展专业对谈的平台,让这种集体反思的能量,成为大家改善教学和建构教学知識的动力。
注:
(1) 例如 Schön, D.A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action.
New York : Basic Books; Parsons, R., Brown, S.(2002). Teacher as Reflective Practitioner and
Action Researcher, Belmont , CA : Wadsworth/Thomson Learning
(2) Tsui, A.B.M. (2003). Understanding Expertise in Teaching: Case Studies of ESL Teachers.
Cambridge : Cambridge University Press
(3) Elliott, J. (2000). Doing Action Research: Doing Practical Philosophy. Prospero 6, pp.82-100.
|
|
中文学习領域
|
C01 「从学语文到用语文」─ 追踪学生中文学习歷程
|
一个小六学生在毕业时的语文能力应达至怎样的水平?
学校老师非常认同教育改革提出让新一代「学会学习」这理念,更深信小学教育是个人成长重要的起步点。他们期望帮助自己的毕业学生打好基础,成为一群能「用语文学语文」,喜欢学习及具反思能力的学习者。
参考中文新课程的建议,学校从发展学生语文能力及学习策略出发设计第二学习阶段校本中文课程。经过三年的学习,学生除掌握了不同的读写策略,发展了独立学习的能力外,更培养出学习语文的兴趣及沟通协作的能力。小六毕业前,他们更将自己的学习成果及反思整理成「学习历程档案」。
在设计教学的过程中,老师摆脱教科书设计的框架,针对学生需要,重编教学进度,设计教材和活动,实践了「以学生为中心,用教材而非教教材」的教学理念。在本节中,他们将与同工一同分享不同时期的教学设计及学生作品,以及他们三年教学实践的反思。
讲者
李淑仪女士 高级学校发展主任
何玉珍教师 马鞍山循道卫理小学
语言 粤语
|
|
C02 初小纵向写作课程 ─ 审题与选材
|
考试及评核局在2007全港性系统评估报告指出,「学生因审题不慎而导致不切题或内容有疏漏的情况时有出现」,更建议「在第一学习阶段中,宜加强学生审题的技巧」。
以写作教学来说,不论是命题写作或是情境写作,题目中的词语起了关键性的作用,令写作的目标更具体化,学生能洞察题目的要求,就是审题能力。学生掌握了题目的要求后,继而是立意与选材的过程。在此过程中,学生要从生活中选取合适的关键性素材,如果未能掌握审题能力,便会将脑内的所有片段全都写在文章,出现文不对题,详略不宜的情况。
中华基督教会基慈小学将上述的审题及选材能力定为校本课程的优化目标,并在推展新课程的共同备课会中作出焦点式的研教及研学。老师更在初小阶段,结合读、写及说的能力发展,建立写作纵向课程,无论是续写句子、看图写作、补段成篇,又或是短文写作,亦渗入审题与选材的学与教活动。是次的主题会就学校处理这个学习难点中的课程内容、教学活动以及课堂训练作出分享及研讨,当中还会展示如何善用写作评讲课,达到提升初小学生比较、分析作品的选材能力。
讲者
罗绮兰女士 高级学校发展主任
陈美华老师 借调教师 (中华基督教会基慈小学)
郑玉兰老师 中华基督教会基慈小学
语言 粤语
|
|
C03 怎么「改」作文?
|
自从2003学年开始,福德学校的老师在写作教学方面便尝试引进各种策略,包括:「创意写作」、「重点批改」、「修改病句」、「读写结合」及「以评促写」,希望可以提高学生的写作兴趣和能力。究竟老师是在怎么样的情境和心态下引进这些策略?这些策略是建基于什么教学理论或信念?这些策略是如何在课堂教学中实践?有什么需要特别留意的地方?学生的学习成效是否有所提升?有何显证?老师本身有何反思?这些问题都会在分享会上一一探讨。
讲者
许孙安先生 高级学校发展主任
劉伟杰老师 福德学校
语言 粤语
|
|
C04 思前想后 ─ 写作基础训練
|
老师批改学生作文时,会发现离题、不分段或分段不当、文句欠通顺、多错别字等问题。据老师了解,学生多是边想边写,而且少有回顾和修改。那么我们可以怎样改善学生这些作文通病呢?
写作思维过程当中,步骤包括:写前构思、设计、写作和回顾与修订。基于此,本组与圣公会圣提摩太小学和轩尼诗道官立下午小学尝试进行一些写前和写后的指导,包括:教导学生审题的策略、以脑图的方法提取资料、选材及分配详略,拟写大纲及分段和在学生完成初稿后,老师进行评讲和让学生互改,进行回顾与修订。
我们通过观察和写作课业分析,可见两所学校的写作计划均有初步成效,希望借是次分享会和与会同工分享交流,并得到宝贵的回馈。
讲者
黄绮玲女士 高级学校发展主任
黎月英老师 轩尼诗道官立下午小学
许佩玉老师 轩尼诗道官立下午小学
罗理瑩老师 轩尼诗道官立下午小学
毛倩华老师 圣公会圣提摩太小学
颜妙燕老师 圣公会圣提摩太小学
语言 粤语
|
|
C05 让兴趣带动学习-文学教学新思维
|
加强文学学习是小学中文新课程改革重要的一环。事实上,在语文学习的材料当中,存有不少既能提升学生语文能力,又能让学学习中华文化,培养品德及发展思维能力的文学佳作。
文学阅读着重个人的体验。如何吸引学生主动学习?如何让学生对作品的内容产生感悟?处理文学教材和语文教材有何不同?以上都是目前小学老师在处理文学作品的教学时脑海里常常出现的问题。
针对初小学生学习文学的特性:以直观感觉理解文学及追求快乐的学习体验,老师在设计文学单元教学时,一方面从兴趣出发,灵活选材,组织有趣的教学活动:如美读、绘画、唱歌等,引领学生从做中学、从游戏中感受文学之美;另方面亦让学生通过欣赏作品,学好语文及认识中华文化,丰富学生的文学知识,为未来的学习打好基础。
两所学校的老师会在本节和大家分享他们的教学设计及教学反思,欢迎大家一齐来玩文学游戏。
讲者
李淑仪女士 高级学校发展主任
王洁老师 顺德聯谊总会何日东小学(上午)
文静仪老师 顺德聯谊总会何日东小学(上午)
劉京荣老师 顺德聯谊总会何日东小学(上午)
劉惠娟老师 顺德聯谊总会何日东小学(上午)
林佩玲老师 顺德聯谊总会何日东小学(下午)
梁燕仪老师 顺德聯谊总会何日东小学(下午)
区之汶老师 顺德聯谊总会何日东小学(下午)
王瑞玲老师 顺德聯谊总会何日东小学(下午)
王新娜老师 顺德聯谊总会何日东小学(下午)
语言 粤语
|
|
C06 情感与情节 ─ 记事文写作
|
老师往往会发现学生在初小阶段虽已掌握记敍事物的基本能力,亦能简单地描述自己的感受;然而,当要学习第二阶段记事能力中需就事件抒发深刻的感受时,就较难突破以往的水平,形成无论在创作记事文或日记、周记等文章时,会常出现「流水账式」的写作问题。
由写作能力的进阶指标来看,高小的写作教学要针对围绕文章的中心思想作情节的挑选及提炼。以学习角度来说,学生须为文章中确立自己的写作意图或思想情感,亦即是「立意」。学生还以「立意」过程去导引跟后的情节铺排及修辞上的表达技巧。
为此,圣公会置富始南小学在高小的共同备课会中,就「立意」及情节的能力发展作仔细的讨论及按照学生的进度重整写作活动。他们会将学校以情感记事为主线的校本中文科课程设计作详尽的分享,展示如何从学习单元内的教学内容编置、学习材料的活用、教与学流程中的读写听说结合,以至合作学习模式的运用,去改善学生「中心欠明确,篇章却冗长」的毛病,达致提升学生「意在笔先」及利用「情节」带出文章中心思想的以事抒情能力。
讲者
羅绮蘭女士 高级学校发展主任
梁维珍老师 圣公会置富始南小学
黎美芬老师 圣公会置富始南小学
蒋卓途老师 圣公会置富始南小学
语言 粤语
|
|
C07 「以问促思」─ 中文科高阶思维的拓展
|
中文新课程除了训练学生读写听说的能力以外,同时也期望发展学生的高层次思维。圣文德天主教小学的中文科老师期望自行设计一个高小校本课程,透过读写听说的训练,培养学生不同层级的思维能力,从而提升学生的探究精神及发展他们的高层次思维、批判性思考及创造等共通能力。阅读教学方面,该校的教学设计采用了「以问促思」的策略,透过不同层次的提问技巧(如复述、解释、重整、伸展、评鉴及创新等),从而促进学生对文章不同层次的思考。此外,藉着多元化的学习活动 — 课前预习、课堂上老师不同层次的提问、培养学生善于发现问题、鼓励学生自设问题互相提问、分组讨论、汇报、写作练习以及撰写课后反思等,学生的学习兴趣明显较前提高,对课堂的投入感也大大加强了。
整体而言,透过多元化的提问及学习活动,学生的思维及读写听说等方面的能力也得以提升。
讲者
梁淑群博士 高级学校发展主任
邓洁云老师 圣文德天主教小学
殷洁瑩老师 圣文德天主教小学
语言 粤语
|
|
英文学习领域
|
E01 Putting thoughts on paper – the what, how and why in process writing
|
Teachers at St. Francis' Canossian School found that some of their students did not write with confidence. Students followed very closely the writing frames and answered the guiding questions faithfully when writing their composition. The products were very similar in content and presentations. The highly structured guided writing put constraint on students’ writing development. In an attempt to enhance students’ proficiency in writing, teachers changed their practices in the teaching of writing at P. 3, P. 4 and P.5 levels from guided writing to process writing.
The main concern to the teachers at the start of their shift to the process writing approach was how to incorporate writing skills into the writing lessons. Being different from their conventional practice in using guiding questions to help students write, they needed to lead students through a series of steps – brainstorming, drafting, revising and publishing. They also needed to provide feedback throughout the writing process. Yet, teachers found that their feedback would not necessarily help students learn better or produce better work. Students did not often treat teachers’ feedback seriously and no action for improvement was taken. To bridge the gap, teachers invited students to respond to their feedback. Such a practice ensured that their feedback was received, attended to, and acted on by the students. It also helped to promote interaction between students and teachers, thus enhancing the feedback process.
During the course of development, a number of questions evolved. Would process writing work for all? Should they keep guided writing for the less able? Was it necessary to integrate the two writing approaches? How could they find time in the very tight teaching schedule for process writing? In this sharing session, teachers will share with the audience their insights and experiences on how they used the process writing approach to incorporate writing skills into their writing lessons, the puzzles they ran into and how they resolved them, and the impact of process writing on students' writing proficiency.
Speakers
|
Ms FUNG Ho-kwan, Jeanda |
School Development Officer |
Ms KU Yuen-fan, Rachel |
St Francis' Canossian School |
Mrs TSANG LAM Wing-yan |
St Francis' Canossian School |
Language English
|
|
E02 Reading information texts with joy and tears
|
Information texts, among various text types stipulated in the Curriculum Guide, are found to be challenging to teachers and students alike. They are a broad category denoting the least common text features and language structures. Teaching information texts by strategies like reading aloud and shared reading is found to be unrewarding. Teachers at T.W.G.Hs. LEO Tung-hai Lee Primary School shared the same experience. They believed that their students needed more practice other than that provided in the textbook.
To begin with, teachers addressed this issue at the curriculum level by introducing information texts into the Reading Workshops and the General English Program. They soon came to recognize the need to expand their repertoire in teaching information texts. Their quest for self improvement began with KWL, a commonly-used instructional strategy recommended for teaching information texts. Upon reflection, they conceptualized their experience and further identified the needs of their students. They found that most of their students struggled not only with reading skills but also with text features and unfamiliar vocabularies when reading information texts. Teachers attempted to tackle these two problems separately. They devised a self-learning package to help students get familiar with different text features. In an attempt to enrich their own instructional strategies and to resolve the problem of teaching difficult vocabulary, teachers researched, co-planned and observed one another’s lessons.
In the sharing session, the two panel heads are going to begin their story with the KWL strategy. They are going to show learning episodes to illustrate how they and their colleagues used various strategies to help students handle unfamiliar vocabulary and how they assessed students learning. They will also share with the audience some of their reflections that involve modular planning and integration, the balance between the teaching of skills and vocabulary, and the joy and tears they found in teaching information texts. The audience is expected to participate in a class activity devised by the teachers to handle text features.
Speakers
|
Ms KWOK Wing-ki, Judy |
School Development Officer |
Ms MAK Shuk-han |
T.W.G.Hs. Leo Tung-hai Lee Primary School |
Language English
|
|
E03 Opening a treasure chest─ experiences in "reading weeks"
|
T.W.G.Hs. Tam Shiu Primary School has incorporated English readers into the curriculum for many years. Yet teachers often met looks of incomprehension in classrooms of mixed abilities. Facing the challenge, the teachers attempted different curriculum planning and pedagogies. Over the years, the School progressed from treating readers as a curriculum option; scheduling readers in reading cycles in which students could only read an English reader once a week; to settling on reading weeks which offer the major benefits of creating a sustained favourable atmosphere for reading and providing instant feedbacks on students’ comprehension.
The reading weeks aim to engage students of different abilities in reading. Drawing on the premise that intelligence is multiple; teachers were of the opinion that integrating multiple multi-sensory learning tasks could be a way out.
Teachers designed tasks matching students' auditory, visual, tactile and kinaesthetic learning styles. They found that role-playing and rapping could involve both the low-achieving and high-achieving students who needed whole-body movement and real-life experience. Engaging students in discussion tasks with self-initiating questions on readers shed light on auditory and visual learners’ different understanding. The combination of writing about authentic experience and using diagrams to trace development of plots for presentations were other student-centred activities. Teachers also reflected that scaffolding the multi-sensory tasks at progressive levels of difficulties may be just as helpful.
In this session, the teachers are going to share with participants their curriculum planning and reflection on the teaching of readers. They will elaborate on why they opted for reading weeks after gauging the strengths and weaknesses of different modes of reader instruction. Strategies of designing tasks and worksheets in reading weeks to match with the perceptual strength of different students will be shared and discussed. Classroom videos and students’ work will be shown to the participants to illustrate different tasks attempted in reading weeks. Audience may be invited to rap along in the session to experience how students learn through multi-sensory ways.
Speakers
|
Ms CHAN Yeung-ming, Eve |
School Development Officer |
Ms LAM Wai-man, Helen |
T.W.G.Hs. Tam Shiu Primary School |
Mr TANG Pui-chi |
T.W.G.Hs. Tam Shiu Primary School |
Language English
|
|
E04 Enhancing competencies, broadening minds - how assessment supports learning
|
Teachers are aware of the impact of assessment on student learning. What students do in their class work, home assignments, preparation for tests and examinations, and how they perceive the results of tests and examinations, has profound influence on them as learners. Seeing that assessment has such a powerful backwash effect on student learning, teachers at SKH St Peter’s Primary School re-examined and reflected on their practices and perception towards assessment in their English KLA curriculum. They identified some of the challenges that they faced in the school. These included the school tradition and culture in teachers’ marking practice, and the multiple demand of assessment.
The sharing will explore how teachers dealt with these challenges by making sense of the data and evidence emerged from Territory-wide System Assessment, internal assessments, collaborative lesson planning meetings, and whole panel discussions. Drawing on the analysis of the data and evidence, teachers began to try out new forms of marking students’work and gradually developed their own scoring criteria on writing. They also tried out new means of giving timely feedback to their students. The initial feedback and discussion focused on ideas rather than on marks and was provided at a time when the ideas were still fresh in students’ minds. Students received feedback from their peers and teacher during group discussion. Seeing and commenting on other’s works heightened their awareness of standards required and helped develop their ability to evaluate their own work.
In this sharing session, authentic curriculum materials and assessment papers will be shown to illustrate the connection and coherency between formative and summative assessments. Student work and learning episodes will be examined and discussed to help illustrate the assessment-feedback loop. It is hoped that the session can prompt reflection in the audience on the connection between learning, teaching and assessment, and on the practical ways in implementing assessment for learning in the English language.
Speakers
|
Ms FUNG Ho-kwan, Jeanda |
School Development Officer |
Ms CHUNG Shuk-yan, Fiona |
SKH St Peter’s Primary School (AM) |
Ms LAM Kwok-kiu, Dorothy |
SKH St Peter’s Primary School (PM) |
Language English
|
|
E05 Poetry writing and appreciation in action
|
How to help struggling and reluctant students to find success in writing and speaking is always a teacher’s concern. Using activities that offer pleasurable learning and the development of language awareness can be an entry point. Research findings indicated that writing short pieces such as poems and rhymes, using words that students liked or knew, did help struggling students write with increased confidence. Such a practice also encouraged able students to experiment with language, thus enhancing their creativity. With such an idea in mind, the P4 teachers of Pat Heung Central Primary School explored using simple poems to stimulate their students to read and write. They attempted to find out if their students could improve in writing and speaking through structured learning procedures.
Poetry writing and appreciation was, therefore, integrated into the learning modules. In the first stage, students were introduced some shape poems about animals for recitation. They were guided to observe the use of adjectives for an accurate description. They learned to clap the rhythm and do the actions while reciting. The learning contents in the textbook and small readers provided the prerequisite language input for writing. Their poems were then recited in class and posted up for sharing. In the next stage, the application of the language forms, phonics and writing skills was encouraged. The pupils attempted to create their simple poems on the basis of a structured framework that allowed them to express their feelings, ideas and experiences with greater confidence. Such kinds of learning activity were shared with other teachers in the school. Poetry writing and appreciation has become one of the learning focuses in the school-based curriculum.
In this sharing session, teachers from Pat Heung Central Primary School will share with the audience how they helped students comprehend simple poems, the strategies to conduct poetry writing and poems recitation, and the ways to develop students’ semantic, syntactic and graphophonic knowledge and skills. Audience will be invited to interact with the presenters in poem recitation.
Speakers
|
Ms WONG Sau-yim, Josephine |
School Development Officer |
Ms HUNG Sui-ying |
Pat Heung Central Primary School |
Mr Yakeen KELLY |
Pat Heung Central Primary School |
Mr TO Kwok-kuen |
Pat Heung Central Primary School |
Language English
|
|
E06 Write right ─ rubrics as criterion-referenced learning tools
|
Writing is clearly a complex, multifaceted process requiring the ability to manipulate many sub-skills simultaneously. Teachers at Lok Wah Catholic Primary School are aware of the inadequacies in the writing of their KS2 students. They found that students generally fell short of ideas in their writing. There was evidence of attempt by students to respond to the prompt but the writing focus was not consistently sustained. How can they help students to write right?
Drawing on the premise that reading and writing should be connected, teachers integrated substantial reading input in the learning modules and designed reading tasks to equip students with the reading skills for understanding of specific text types. Students were immersed in the genre during reading. They then composed a text in that genre through shared writing before they were guided to write their own text.
When it came to assessing students’ writing, criterion-referenced marking was introduced and refined through adopting and developing writing rubrics for expository and narrative writing. However, there was a clear mismatch between what were stipulated in the rubrics and students’ writing performance in examinations. The practice of using the rubrics only for marking tests and examinations revealed a very loose link between teaching, learning and assessment. The rubrics as tools for assessment had little impact on students’ writing. To make better use of the rubrics as learning tools in writing, teachers shared with students explicitly the writing rubrics in terms of content, audience, purpose, and appropriateness of style. They gave specific and timely feedback to inform students of their performance and areas needing improvements throughout the writing process.
This sharing session aims to illustrate how teachers scaffold and supported students’ reading and writing development; how pedagogical considerations on writing rubrics were solicited, and how they analyzed and used students’ learning evidence to reflect on the teaching of writing. They will also highlight the match and mismatch in teachers and students’ expectations identified when putting the writing rubrics in practice, and how these discrepancies were addressed.
Speakers
|
Dr TSE Kwok-keung, Ernest |
School Development Officer |
Ms TSE Chi-mei, Auxilia |
Lok Wah Catholic Primary School |
Ms CHAN Shin-han, Pam |
Lok Wah Catholic Primary School |
Language English
|
E07 Can junior primary students go beyond sentence writing in English?
|
For emergent writers at junior primary level, coherent text writing is always a hurdle to overcome. They are acquainted with substituting words in structured writing frames to produce a number of repetitive but discrete sentences. Parallel and highly structured guided writing are the general practice in writing lessons. However, junior primary students need to cope with the demand of the Primary 3 TSA writing papers that require them to demonstrate proficiency in producing writing with “relevant ideas” and “coherency”. This is always an area of concern for English language teachers at SKH Lui Ming Choi Memorial Primary School. In view of the need to give an early start to P.2 students in the training of writing coherent texts, teachers initiated a writing program to develop students’ writing skills at the end of the 2006-2007 year.
With text coherence being made the object of learning in the writing program, teachers introduced model paragraphs to increase students’ exposure to coherent texts with a similar theme. Students were taught to brainstorm and select relevant ideas, and arrange them into a coherent paragraph. Concept maps were used to illustrate the structure of these writings. Students were expected to model on the graphic organizer when planning for their own writing. In the course of development, one interesting finding identified was that while some classes could come up with a more coherent piece, others could not. What makes the difference? As practitioners and observers, teachers will share with the audience their understanding of students’ learning process, their belief and rationale behind their choice of the teaching approaches, and some ‘teaching tips’ generated from their experience.
Speakers
|
Ms WONG Kit-mei, Gladys |
School Development Officer |
Ms CHAN Man-yee, Dorcas |
SKH Lui Ming Choi Memorial Primary School |
Ms CHU Siu-lin, Alice |
SKH Lui Ming Choi Memorial Primary School |
Ms LEUNG Kin-mong, Christine |
SKH Lui Ming Choi Memorial Primary School |
Ms LO Mun-fong, Rachel |
SKH Lui Ming Choi Memorial Primary School |
Language English
|
|
數学学习領域
|
M01數学探究 ─ 分數分類、扩分、约分及通分
|
四年级的「分数」课题中,包含了一些重要的数学概念,有分数的分类、扩分、约分及通分等,学生学习这些概念时,往往感到抽象难明,也难以表达及解释其含意,学习时多偏重计算,却忽略了概念的理解及计算背后的意义。老师期望改善这情况,故在教学活动中,让学生从探究中尝试自行把分数分类,并思考扩分、约分及通分的意义,以及发现带、假分数互化和扩分、约分及通分的计算方法。老师在设计课堂时加强了解难元素,学生在共同解决问题时,往往要进行深入的讨论与思考,从中加深对课题的认识。在学习过程中,学生需要表达及解释思考过程,让老师从中了解她们对概念的掌握,老师更鼓励学生采用不同的方法(例如:图像及情景)去表达他们的想法及概念。
老师认为进行数学探究,能加强学生对概念的理解,也能藉学习数学提升学生的解难及表达能力。
讲者
周伟志先生 高级学校发展主任
吴凤燕老师 嘉諾撒圣玛利学校
钟嘉麗老师 嘉諾撒圣玛利学校
蔡敏意老师 嘉諾撒圣玛利学校
陸蕙雯老师 嘉諾撒圣玛利学校
劉洁心老师 嘉諾撒圣玛利学校
语言 粤语
|
|
M02乘法 ─ 点只「念乘數表」咁简单?
|
虽然「基本乘法」只是小二的学习课题,它对学生学习较高层次的数学课题却有着深远的影响。在第二学习阶段中,有不少数学概念都是建基于乘法概念,例如:「扩分」、「通分」、「面积」、「速率」等。
一般人都以为懂得「念乘数表」便是懂得乘法;然而凤溪第二小学的老师却面对这个迷思:他们发现部份学生未能运用乘法概念去建构新知识和解难,例如部份懂得念乘数表的同学在计算:「6x7 = ? 」时,往往需由6x1,6x2……背起,这显示同学祗会倚赖背诵公式或牢记某种计算方法的答案去处理问题;于是老师便在二年级进行有关乘法的课研,尝试帮助学生把乘法的「概念」与「应用」连系起来。
本个案我们会分享凤溪第二小学的老师如何透过不同的教学策略 (例如:运用拟题活动去澄清乘法概念、利用讨论开放题目来巩固乘数法则、透过问题辩解去分辨乘法问题等活动等)去帮助该校二年级学生建构、掌握乘数计算技巧、深化乘法概念及厘清乘法「概念」与「应用」之间的连系。
讲者
陈子阳先生 高级学校发展主任
陸燕娜老师 凤溪第二小学
李思敏老师 凤溪第二小学
李雅仪老师 凤溪第二小学
语言 粤语
|
|
M03 小四学生數学解难能力的培养
|
天主教柏德学校老师在去年有计划地在小四数学课程培养学生的解难能力,在四边形、周界、乘法、四则混合计算等课题,引入开放性问题,渗入解难策略的训练,使学生掌握常见的解难策略。此外,老师们更希望进一步探讨学生如何有效地运用所学的解难策略,于是拣选了「分数的比较」及「周界与面积的关系」等课题进行课研。在处理「分数的比较」时,老师运用解难教学,透过小组及大课讨论,有意识地逐步带领学生认识及经历解难过程,并鼓励同学运用不同的策略比较「分数」的大小。在过程中老师发现大部分同学虽然都十分投入以解难为中心的学习模式,却未能掌握验证及反思所用的策略。因此,在设计「周界与面积的关系」的教学活动时,老师再次运用解难策略,让学生自行理解问题、分析问题,再拟订求解计划,并试用所选取的方案,验证及回顾解决方案,向全班同学汇报。经过各阶段的课堂实践,老师对如何培养学生的解难能力有更深的认识。
讲者
曾倫尊女士 高级学校发展主任
葉妙儿老师 天主教柏德学校
李韦姬老师 天主教柏德学校
梁咏诗老师 天主教柏德学校
语言 粤语
|
|
M04 小數除法的理解
|
小数除法是小数课题中最为抽象及最难掌握的部分,学生常犯的错误包括:
1. 有「乘会变大,除会变小」的迷思概念;
2. 在除法上会以「大的数」 「小的数」来解题;
3. 在求余数问题中常以四舍五入法求商;
4. 在求有余数的除法中,会忽略余数的小数点,或是将余数的小数点对齐移位后的被除数小数点。
老师针对上述问题,设计了一连串的探究活动,帮助学生连结旧有的概念,拆解当中的迷思,厘清潜藏的谬误,并建构正确的概念和运算规则。此外,老师选取了小数除小数中余数处理的部分作深入探讨,透过分析课堂片段及学生习作,让我们一同透视学生获取知识的过程,探索他们在小组及全班的互动中,如何达至相互交流、相互启发、相互帮助的学习气氛。
讲者
萧霞萍女士 高级学校发展主任
李宝文老师 中华基督教会基慧小学(马湾)
羅家欣老师 中华基督教会基慧小学(马湾)
羅志明老师 中华基督教会基慧小学(马湾)
邱春麗老师 中华基督教会基慧小学(马湾)
劉振辉老师 中华基督教会基慧小学(马湾)
语言 粤语
|
|
M05 數学学习难点对數学教学的启示—分數与四边形的特性
|
学校在过去两年的全港性系统评估报告中,老师发现学生在小三分数学习及小四四边形特性的表现,尚有改进的空间,加上这两个课题的学习内容对学生来说较为抽象,学生比较难于掌握,因此,老师认为有必要在教学及课程上作出调适。他们把这类较为抽象的课题,透过三个学习阶段(概念的建立、分辨和应用),令学生可以循序渐进地进行学习,藉以提升学习表现。
在处理分数学习时,老师设计了不同的学习活动来帮助学生理解分数作为整体的部分及一组物件的部分,帮助学生厘清及纠正他们对分数概念的谬误。
当这班学生升上四年级后,老师更以这次优化分数课程的经验去处理四年级另一个较难理解的课题—「四边形的特性」的教学。藉着实物的操作、观察和互相讨论的过程,学生可以透过具体的操作建立概念,分辨出各图形的特性,并应用在不同的情景。此外,老师更会协助学生进行不同的探究活动,对各种四边形的特性进行分析及归纳,使他们能够更有效地认识及分辨各种四边形的特性。在处理这两个课题的教学过程中,老师对数学教学的发展亦有着更深及更新的体会。
讲者
吴沛荣先生 高级学校发展主任
李洁欣老师 天主教善导小学
张子宇老师 天主教善导小学
吴伟文老师 天主教善导小学
蔡凤鸣老师 天主教善导小学
黄敏机老师 天主教善导小学
梁淑贞老师 天主教善导小学
语言 粤语
|
|
M06 「舍易取难」? ─ 小五面积教学的另類尝试
|
在五年级的「面积」课题中,学生需要学习平行四边形、三角形、梯形及多边形的面积。老师在讨論此课题时有以下疑问:
1. 学生能否从探究中自行找出以上图形面积的公式?
2. 学生能否从不同的计算方法中判断出最有效的方法?
3. 学生完成此课题后能否靈活运用分割、补足或其他方法,自行从量度中找出日常生活中多边形的相关资料,并找出它们的面积?
为了解答以上的问题,老师设计了一些学习活动让学生从量度及图形拼砌中自行找出不同图形面积的方法,并鼓励学生从多角度思考,以及运用不同方法解决问题。过程中,学生多了思考机会,亦同时浮现出一些学习上的问题(例如学生不甚掌握以垂直线画出图形的高度),这虽然增加了教学时的困难,却让老师知道要适当地处理。
在以上的教学设计,老师舍弃了简单直接的惯用方法,尝试采用另一种教学形式,当中着实有不少挣扎与反思。除了就一些教学上的共同问题进行讨论外,老师们也期望与大家一起分享及交流。
讲者
周伟志先生 高级学校发展主任
文美玉老师 借调教师 (香海正觉蓮社佛教正慧小学)
丁鹏程老师 北角官立小学
李明佳老师 北角官立小学
曾素蓮老师 圣公会奉基小学
林燕燕老师 圣公会奉基小学
语言 粤语
|
|
M07 初小学解题 ─ 认真审题、提升解题能力
|
初小学生对文字理解能力薄弱,审阅题目的技巧不高,故计算应用题时出现只看关键字及数字便得出算式的情况。另一方面,课本及作业常以同一运算方法的应用题归类,学生无需仔细思考便能写出正确的算式。
秀明小学的老师明白学生能写出正确的算式不代表他们理解整道题目的意思;因此,老师从课程规划及教学策略出发,着重培养学生认真审题的态度与解题的能力。在过去两年来,老师培养学生朗读题目的习惯,细心思考,继而让学生主动解释题目的意思,找出他们对文字理解的弱点,从中提升学生的理解能力。另一方面,老师亦引进不同的教学策略,如设计思考性的应用题、透过小组讨论及自拟应用题等活动,刺激学生的思考。
在这个环节中,老师会分享他们的实践经验,以及从中引发的反思。
讲者
李润强先生 高级学校发展主任
曾嘉文老师 秀明小学
邓婉文老师 秀明小学
语言 粤语
|
|
M08 从「量度」活动看学生学习
|
「度量」范畴教学看似容易,但学生的表现却一般;而「全港系统性评估报告」更指出学生在使用工具和阅读刻度上出现困难,例如未能准确读出资料。究竟我们可以如何协助学生有效地学习呢?两所官小的老师尝试利用「长度和距离」作为核心课题以研究度量范畴的教学。
不同的学者皆指出知识学习宜在情景下发生,不然,知识便会变成孤立的原则或程序步骤,在缺乏脉络意义支持的情况下,在学习后的描述、回忆与应用表现也相对弱。因此老师从小二课程开始便着重发展校本教材,设计适当的教学活动,增强学生量度日常物品的经验。基于课时及人手调配问题,往年在「长度和距离」课题后只做纸笔评估。为了更有效审视学生学习情况,老师在单元教学后悉心组织了联课活动,有计划地利用学校设施进行量度,以评估学生在不同种类的量度活动的掌握情况,特别是较大距离和长度的量度,进一步了解学生的谬误,提升教学效能。老师期望藉这次经验与大家分享及共同探讨「度量」范畴的教学。
讲者
陈影菲女士 高级学校发展主任
黄健英老师 借调老师 (马头涌官立小学)
葉长芳老师 香港南区官立小学
张计妹老师 香港南区官立小学
语言 粤语
|
|
常識科及跨学习領域
|
GS01 专题研习与「2008 年北京奥运」
|
沙田循道卫理小学及圣公会圣米迦勒小学于常识科以「2008年北京奥运」为主题,进行专题研习。学校将六级专题研习拟定为三个重点:一、二为年级「奥运吉祥物与中国文化」;三、四年级为「奥运象征物与中国文化」及「奥运马术」;五、六年级为「我国的奥运发展」。从实践示例反映学校依不同年级学生的研习能力设计不同程度的研习活动,初小让学生多观察,从提供的资料找重点;中小要求学生做简单的资料组织和分析,并对亲友进行访问,最后综合一、二手资料,做结论和提出建议;高小年级除搜集及处理二手资料外,进行问卷调查和作出分析。
两位学校课程统筹主任分享是次「2008年北京奥运」专题研习的规划和实践经验,过程中扮演不同角色,包括协调不同学科进行「2008北京奥运」主题活动的统筹者,个别年级专题研习的实施者及「2008北京奥运」资讯的提供者。
讲者
黎允善先生 高级学校发展主任
葉衬欢老师 沙田循道卫理小学
文绮棋老师 沙田循道卫理小学
殷振雄老师 圣公会圣米迦勒小学
语言 粤语
|
|
GS02 科学探究日 = 愉快 + 学习
|
科学教育近年在小学愈来愈受关注,形形色色的科学探究日及不同主题的科学探究活动在学校相继出现。到底怎样形式的科学探究日才能有效促进学生在科学范畴的学习呢?在选择与安排科学探究活动时怎样才能令学生学得又愉快又有效果呢?钟声学校与将军澳循道卫理小学分别以「水」和「空气」两个主题,按小一至小六学生的不同能力,举行全校性的科学探究日。两次的科学探究日都有效地令学生在愉快的气氛下学习到科学探究的原理、技巧以至精神。本环节将以工作坊的形式,令参加者有机会亲身参与有关的科学探究活动,并透过两校负责老师的分享,了解举办科学探究日的经验与心得。
讲者
李淑庄女士 高级学校发展主任
李美嫦老师 钟声学校
张家健老师 钟声学校
吴怀燕老师 将军澳循道卫理小学
黄勵德老师 将军澳循道卫理小学
语言 粤语
|
|
GS03 常識科科务发展的路径
|
作为一个照顾三个学习领域的综合学科,常识科在小学学校教育承担相当份量的担子,要肩负这个重任,学校在人手及工作策略上也需相应的安排。
在这个环节中,天水围循道卫理小学的老师会分享他们在常识科科务发展的经验,当中包括课程领导的扩散、发展焦点的厘订及人力支援的招募等。其中常识科级联络会的成立以及其推动的发展焦点成为了该校常识科持续发展的要素。
在这个环节中,老师会分享以上的经验之余,亦会检讨从这些经验所引发的反思。相信这所学校实施的具体方案并不适用于每一所其他学校,但当中遇到的挑战和引发的心路历程却可诱发其他学校同工的作更深入的思考。
讲者
吴木嘉先生 高级学校发展主任
黄琳老师 天水围循道卫理小学
蔡庆苓老师 天水围循道卫理小学
梁健寧老师 天水围循道卫理小学
语言 粤语
|
|
GS04 常識科多元化评估的实践
|
常识科老师大多会同意「思考技能」及「自我管理能力」是很难评核的。两所学校的科任老师为实践「学习与评估互相配合」的原则,分别将思考技能、研习技能和生活技能落实成为常识科的评估项目。
中华基督教会拔臣小学分享三年以来小二至小四年级在纸笔评估规划与实践的经验及遇到的困难。题型突破了以往侧重知识及概念理解的测考题目,藉此展示学生思考技能和研习能力的学习成果。老师对思考技能和研习能力两类题型作出跟进,从分数及答题内容评核学生的学习情况。
圣公会圣米迦勒小学为切实促进初小年级学生生活技能的发展,「生活技能」成为一至三年级的常识科评估项目;此外,各级按照课程内容选定课堂活动,例如时事分析、科学及科技活动等,作为日常学习的评核项目。两所学校的老师会分享上述的评估规划方向和实践经验,为与会老师引发新的思考。
讲者
黎允善先生 高级学校发展主任
陈嘉璐老师 中华基督教会拔臣小学
盧洁梅老师 中华基督教会拔臣小学
潘翠媚老师 中华基督教会拔臣小学
殷振雄老师 圣公会圣米迦勒小学
陈斯适老师 圣公会圣米迦勒小学
语言 粤语
|
|
GS05 透过专题研习建构「能力为本」的纵向课程
|
建构学习能力,让学生学会学习,是教育同工关注的重点。究竟如何培训学生的学习能力?怎样才可建构有系统的能力为本课程呢?宣道会台山陈元喜小学尝试以专题研习作为策略,建立「能力为本课程」。
「能力为本课程」是以建构能力为出发点,定出具方向性的学习框架,配合专题研习的策略,透过各级的专题研习活动,发展学生的研习能力及共通能力。「能力为本课程」中的专题研习活动既配合常识科「关注个人发展→认识本地社区→关心香港社会→关心祖国」的纵向发展,亦涵盖了常识科的不同范畴。
分享的老师会从能力课程的构思到实践的过程,以校本课程实例、学生作品及教学反思,与大家分享建立「能力为本课程」的实作经验,见证一个「能力为本课程」的诞生。
讲者
余忠权先生 高级学校发展主任
陈淑英老师 香港九龍塘基督教中华宣道会台山陈元喜小学
语言 粤语
|
|
GS06 以博物館活化学生学习
|
中华基督教会基道小学(九龙城)的老师在设计「香港故事」这个单元时,决定安排学生到香港历史博物馆参观,藉此增进学生对昔日香港的认识。但老师打从心底里明白「放羊式」的自由行对促进学生学习的作用不大,而博物馆导赏团除在安排上困难外,亦未必能配合校本课程的重点,老师因而决定自己设计参观的路线,选定与单元相关的学习重点,结合着意发展学生学习技能的活动,编订相配的素材,以引导学生的学习。
香港浸信会联会小学的老师在教授相同课题时,除参考了以上的经验,亦亲身到博物馆考察,因应对学生的了解及对教学重点的不同考虑,修改了当中的设计,使参观活动更能促进学生于所订重点的学习。例如,老师着重发展学生建基于证据的推论,故此悉心为学生营造活用观察所得资料的机会,让学生能提出有理据的观点;而这种资料分析的技能,亦为其后的专题研习播下种籽。
在本节中,以上两所学校的老师会分享他们在设计上述课程所经过的历程,分析学生在不同安排中的学习表现,从而总结他们在筹划这类全方位学习的经验。
讲者
吴木嘉先生 高级学校发展主任
梁永强老师 中华基督教会基道小学(九龍城)
郭健昌老师 香港浸信会聯会小学
阮慧恒老师 香港浸信会聯会小学
语言 粤语
|