本文是一篇英语论文，笔者在对四个要素的观察中，参与者表现出出色的合作技能，而表现出较弱的个人责任感。一般来说，这个学习小组可以在友好的气氛中互相尊重。然而，低分主要来自任务分工不清、责任心弱、缺乏支持和反馈。研究还发现，成员在群体中扮演的角色受到同伴关系的影响。A、 受欢迎，认为自己是一个重要角色；B、 平凡的人，是一个好的倾听者和实干者；C、 平凡的人，是一个普通的倾听者；D、 被忽视的，往往被忽视。
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION
1.4 Research overview
The thesis consists of five chapters.
Chapter One is the overall introduction. This chapter introduces the researchbackground, research purpose, research significance and research overview.
Chapter Two is the literature review. This chapter firstly states the definitionsand dimensions about deep learning. Then the types, focuses and learning status ofclassroom observation are presented. Finally, domestic and foreign theoreticalfoundation at home and abroad, SOLO Taxonomy, Affective Filter Hypothesis andSocial Constructionism, is explained.
Chapter Three is the research methodology. This chapter covers researchquestions, participants selection, research procedure, research instruments, researchintervention and research analysis methods.
Chapter Four reports research results and discussion. Characteristics ofparticipants’ learning status are summarized and how promoted instructional designaffected participants’ learning status is presented.
Chapter Five is the conclusion of the whole study. This chapter is composed ofmajor findings, pedagogical implications, limitations of the study and suggestions forfurther research.
CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research questions
(1) What are the characteristics of English learning status of junior high schoolstudents based on classroom observation focusing on deep learning?
(2) How does the promoted instructional design affect students’ learning status fromthe perspective of deep learning?
Based on the selection criteria, detailed information of four participants is asfollows: (1) There are two boys and two girls. Student A and C are male. Student Band D are female. (2) The language proficiency is their ranking in English tests, whichcomes from the score ranking of last 4 monthly tests. Student A ranks 2/40, student Branks 8/40, student C 23/40 and student D 30/40. (3) Four participants all started tolearn English in grade 3 in elementary school, so they all have learned English for 6years.
CHAPTER FOUR DATA ANALYSIS
4.1 Characteristics of participants’ learning status
This section focuses on analyzing participants’ characteristics of learning status,including the dimension of cognitive level, the dimension of subject emotion and thedimension of interpersonal relationship. The data comes from LessonⅠand LessonⅡwhich are before research intervention.
4.1.1 Analysis of the leaning characteristics from the dimension of cognitive level
(1) Analysis of observation scale
Following is the cognitive observation scale in lessonⅡ.
4.2 Characteristics of participants’ learning status after intervention
This section focuses on analyzing participants’ learning status after intervention,including the dimension of cognitive level, the dimension of subject emotion and thedimension of interpersonal relationship. The data comes from LessonⅢand LessonⅣwith promoted instructional design.
4.2.1 Analysis of the leaning characteristics from the dimension of cognitive levelafter intervention
(1) Analysis of observation scales
Following scale is the cognitive observation scale in LessonⅣ.
CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION
5.1 Research findings
Finding 1: In the dimension of cognitive level, all participants have status ofsurface learning and deep learning, which is in different distributions in fivestructures. After intervention, participants’ status of deep learning improvessignificantly.
Participants possess different distributions of surface and deep learning structurein cognitive level (Biggs, 1982). Specifically, A has 80% in deep learning structureand 20% in surface learning structure; B also has 80% in deep learning structure and20% in surface learning structure; C has 20% in deep learning structure, 65% insurface learning structure and 15% in no participation; D has 10% in deep learningstructure, 70% in surface learning structure and 20% in no participation. From allparticipants, A gets the highest distribution in deep learning, which is 80%; D gets thehighest distribution in surface learning, which is 70%. In addition, it is noted thatcognitive level has positive correlation to language proficiency, indicating that themore distribution of deep learning structure students have, the more outstandinglanguage proficiency they possess. Moreover, this study acknowledges thatparticipants’ cognitive level is influenced by degree of concentration. The moreconcentrated students are, the higher possibility that they are in deep learningstructure there is. Besides, activities like open-ended questions, question chain,brainstorm, mind map, etc., are contributed to cultivate behaviors in deep learningstructure.
After intervention, the effect of promoted instructional design on participants’cognitive level is obvious and significant. Of five structures, there is a significantdifference in uni-structure, multi-structure as well as extended abstract structure and there is a slight difference in pre-structure as well as relational structure. Moreover, Dgets the most progress with an increase of 50% in higher structures; next, C gets anincrease of 45% in higher structures; then, B get 15% ; also, A gets 15%. It isacknowledged that instructional design with high-order thinking activities likequestion chains, open-ended questions, brainstorm, mind map can increase students’cognitive level so as to improve status of deep learning.
reference(omittrd)
