大学英语课堂教学中医学生“基于问题的学习”模式研究
|
摘要
在大学外语教学改革和医学教育改革的双重背景下,本文对大学英语课堂教学环境中以英语作为外语(EFL)的医学生的“讲座问题式学习”(LPBL)模式进行了尝试性探讨。该模式源于加拿大麦克马斯特(McMaster)大学医学院临床医学教师采纳的“基于问题的学习”或“问题式学习”(PBL)模式,即学习中把学生置于复杂的、结构不良的、开放式的问题情境中,通过小组学习的方式共同解决难题,以达到自主学习能力和终身学习能力提高的目的,其教学目标与《大学英语课程教学要求》、《全球医学教育最基本要求》的教学目标和教学理念是一致的。
PBL的理论基础是建构主义学习理论。由认知心理学家杜威、皮亚杰、维果斯基、布鲁纳等人丰富和完善起来的建构主义理论是西方教育心理学中最有影响的流派,其教育改革理念在世界范围内影响颇深。该理论提倡在教师指导下以学习者为中心的学习,认为学习是一个以学生已有的知识和经验为基础,通过个体与环境的相互作用主动建构“意义”的过程,所以“问题式学习”正是迎合了《大学英语课程教学要求》的需求。
本文作者在深入领会《大学英语课程教学要求》和建构主义学习理论的基础上,在对国内外医学教育中实施的PBL进行深入的理论研究和实践研究的前提下,借鉴了用于临床教学的PBL方法,同时吸收了传统课堂的LBL(讲座式学习)方法的精髓,首先从理论上构建了一套在大学英语课堂教学环境中以英语作为外语(EFL)的医学生的LPBL模式。该模式涵盖了教学目标、教学方法、教学环境、教师/学生作用、教学资料、教学管理、教学评价等主要方面,同时融合了教育部在《大学英语课程教学要求》里设计的“基于计算机和课堂的英语多媒体教学模式”与“基于计算机的英语学习过程”。
为了验证整合后的LPBL模式的有效性,本文作者对天津医科大学2008级临床医学、麻醉学、医学影像学三个专业4个班级的112名学生进行了为期18周的教学实验。本研究的目的在于考察在大学英语教学环境中,LPBL模式对以英语为外语的中国语言学习者英语水平的提高和多种职业技能的培养所起的作用,着重考察学生英语听说水平的提高及其自主学习能力、合作学习能力、解决问题能力、批判性思维能力及其倾向的提高,最终为医学生的专业学习和终身学习奠定学习基础。
该研究以测试、问卷为主,同时采纳观察、访谈等辅助方法,通过对实验组和对照组实施不同的教学模式(构建的LPBL模式和传统的LBL模式)所表现出的英语综合水平和相关的职业技能的差异性回答研究问题。研究方法采用定量研究与定性研究相结合的方法。定量研究方法包括语言能力测试(前测和后测)、批判性思维倾向问卷调查(前测和后测)、四种职业相关技能问卷调查(每种技能各三次);定性研究方法包括课题学习过程中开展的四项观察活动,含学生个人观察、小组观察(2套)、教师观察,以及学生访谈。全部数据收集后用SPSS 16.0统计软件包进行分析,说明众多数据之间的关系。
定量研究与定性研究拟解决的问题:
1.经过18周的实验,LPBL模式能否促进实验组学生的英语语言水平的提高?
2.经过18周的实验,实验组学生的职业技能是否比对照组要高?
3.LPBL模式下与LBL模式下的学生的批判性思维倾向是否有所不同?
4.实验组学生的职业技能与其英语水平是否具有相关性?
5.整合后的LPBL模式是否适用于大学英语课堂教学环境中以英语作为外语的医学生的学习?
此外,由此衍生的假设也在本文做了验证。
我们可以得出结论:大学英语教学环境中实施LPBL模式,尽管该模式作用下的英语语言水平有所不同,但总的说来,它能有效地提高中国英语学习者的英语听说水平及其批判性思维倾向,帮助医学生构建学科知识,提高他们的解决问题、自主学习、合作学习、批判性思维等与职业相关的技能。LPBL模式可以作为大学英语课堂教学环境中众多教与学方法当中的一种选择,尤其是当语言学习者通过了大学英语六级考试并达到了《大学英语教学要求》规定的“较高要求”之后。LPBL模式下的学习者受到激励去学习学科内容和语言,在与他人的合作学习中有更多的机会进行目标语技能练习及其职业相关的技能练习,从而导致语言习得,特别是体现在听说技能上的语言习得的产生。
本研究在国内大学英语课堂进行中率先提出LPBL模式,该创新点体现在以下几个方面:
1.立足于大学英语课堂教学,以提升医学生英语语言水平和各种相关的学习能力为切入点,从医学院校培养全面发展人才的视角,在对国内外医学教育中实施的PBL进行深入的理论研究和实践研究的前提下,结合传统的LBL模式,构建了一套在大学课堂环境下以英语作为外语的医学生的LPBL学习模式。
2. LPBL模式旨在强调对医学生自主学习能力、合作学习能力、解决问题能力、批判性思维能力及倾向的培养,最终为医学生的专业学习和终身学习奠定基础。它是对传统的LBL的一种继承,也是对临床医学上PBL的一种发展,是二者的有机结合,对我国大学英语教学,尤其是医学院校的大学英语教学模式具有一定的参考和借鉴作用。
3.在理论上,丰富了建构主义以学生为中心的教与学的理论内涵。
4.在研究方法上,采用定量研究与定性研究相结合的方法,通过测试、问卷、观察、访谈等形式的实验教学,掌握了大量原始数据,本研究的结果为医学院校管理层对大学英语教学目标的定位、课程设置、课堂师生关系的处理、课堂组织形式、教学环境的改进、教学评价体系的完善,以及教师培训等方面提供了较为全面的实际参考价值。
Based on the dual reform of College English teaching and medical education, this dissertation makes a tentative study on an LPBL (Lecture & Problem-Based Learning) model for medical undergraduates in EFL context. This new model was originated at the Faculty of Medicine at McMaster University in Canada, where the teachers adopted the clinical Problem-based Learning (PBL) approach and placed their students in an authentic context in which the problems were always complex, ill-structured and open-ended so that the students could gain a deep understanding of the problems in the process of learning and could finally solve them to attain the goal of autonomous leaning and lifelong learning skills by means of working collaboratively in small groups. The teaching goal of PBL comes in line with that of both the CECR (College English Curriculum Requirements) and the GMER (Global Minimal Essential Requirements).
The theoretical basis for PBL is constructivism. Advocated and developed by cognitive psychologists John Dewey, Jean Piaget, Lev Vygotsky and Jerome Bruner, constructivism is considered as the most influential trend in western educational psychology and the most important concept in worldwide education reform. Constructivism advocates student-centered learning under the guidance of teacher, assumes knowledge is actively constructed by learners as they attempt to make sense of their experience, and learning is a personal interpretation of the world, so PBL just conforms to the requirement of CECR.
Guided by CECR and constructivist learning theories, the author conducts a literature research home and abroad on clinical PBL, both in theory and in practice. Based on the clinical PBL, the author absorbs the essence of traditional LBL in classroom context and theoretically designs an LPBL model used for EFL medical students in the context of College English classroom instruction. This model covers some key items: teaching objectives, teaching methods, teaching context, tutor’s role and learner’s role, teaching materials, teaching administration and evaluation etc. In addition, this LPBL model combines the current“Computer- and Classroom-Based College English Teaching Model”and the“Process of Computer- Based English Learning”designed by the MOE in CECR.
In order to testify the effectiveness of the LPBL model, the author conducts a pilot study within 18 weeks among the total of 112 Year 2 (Grade 2008) undergraduates, majored in clinical medicine, anesthesia, and medical imaging in Tianjin Medical University (TJMU). The purpose of this study is to examine the Chinese EFL learners’English proficiency gains and their professionalism-related skill factors affecting their achievements under LPBL model, focusing on the learners’achievements in their English listening and speaking, self-directed learning, collaborative learning, problem solving, critical thinking and their internal motivation promotion in the context of College English classroom instruction so as to pave a way for their further professional learning and lifelong learning.
The research was conducted between experimental group and control group mainly through tests and questionnaire surveys, supplemented with observations and interviews. Differences in learners’English language proficiency and professionalism-related skills between the two groups in different models (the integrated LPBL model and the conventional LBL model) are illustrated to address the research questions. The quantitative research and the qualitative research are employed in the experiments. A series of test-based and skills-oriented experiments involved in the quantitative research—language proficiency test (pre-/post test); critical thinking disposition test (CTDI) (pre-/post test); 4 sorts of professionalism-related skills test (3 tests for each skill)—and classroom-based and process-oriented surveys by individual /group /tutor class observations and students’interview in the qualitative aspect are conducted. All the data collected are processed with the software SPSS 16.0 to understand the relationships among the multiple data sources. Both the quantitative research and the qualitative research are designed to address the following 5 questions:
1. Could LPBL model improve experimental group students’language proficiency after 18 week experiment?
2. Are experimental group students’professionalism-related skills higher than those of control group students after 18 week experiment?
3. Is there any difference in students’critical thinking disposition (CTD) between LPBL process and LBL process?
4. Do experimental group students’professionalism-related skills have a correlation with their English knowledge?
5. Is the integrated LPBL model suitable for medical students in EFL class?
Besides, the above question-generated hypotheses are also explored in the study. Conclusions can be drawn from the research that in general the integrated LPBL model is an effective way to develop Chinese EFL learners’English listening and speaking proficiency—though effects of LPBL on their English language proficiency are differentiated, foster their CTD and upgrade their professionalism-related skills, including problem-solving skills, self-directed learning skills, collaborative learning skills, and critical thinking skills. LPBL thus can be an option among the various language teaching and learning methods in the context of College English classroom instruction, especially after the learners have passed CET-6 and met the intermediate requirements of the CECR. Learners in the LPBL model are motivated to learn both content and language and have more opportunities to practice the target language skills and the professionalism-related skills while collaboratively learning with each other, which enhances their language acquisition especially in their listening and speaking.
This study is conducted in the context of Chinese College English classroom and initiates LPBL model for medical students. The innovations lie in the following points.
1. The study is based on College English classroom instruction and an in-depth theoretical research and action research on clinical PBL in medical field, home and abroad, taking promoting medical students’English language proficiency and relevant learning skills as the breakthrough point to integrate the traditional LBL model and construct an LPBL model for EFL medical students in the context of College English classroom instruction in perspective of fostering all-round medical talents.
2. LBL model focuses on promoting medical students’problem solving skills, self-directed learning skills, collaborative learning skills, and the CTDI, paving a way for their professional learning and lifelong learning. The combined LPBL is either a heritage of traditional LBL or a development of clinical PBL. It is certain that LPBL model would bring a lot of instructive enlightenment worthy of their reference for Chinese colleges and universities, particularly for the medical universities, in College English classroom instruction.
3. Theoretically, LPBL model has enriched constructivist learning and teaching theories, centered on learners.
4. In research methodology, both the quantitative research and the qualitative research are conducted by means of series of experiment methods—test, questionnaire, observation, and interview so that the researcher has gathered a mass of first-hand data. The findings and results of the study would provide the institutional managements with a comparatively comprehensive and valuable reference to College English teaching objectives, course design, roles of teachers and students in class, class organization, learning environment, evaluation, teacher training and so on. In particular, the findings could provide a new teaching model for Chinese College English teaching reform.
PBL的理论基础是建构主义学习理论。由认知心理学家杜威、皮亚杰、维果斯基、布鲁纳等人丰富和完善起来的建构主义理论是西方教育心理学中最有影响的流派,其教育改革理念在世界范围内影响颇深。该理论提倡在教师指导下以学习者为中心的学习,认为学习是一个以学生已有的知识和经验为基础,通过个体与环境的相互作用主动建构“意义”的过程,所以“问题式学习”正是迎合了《大学英语课程教学要求》的需求。
本文作者在深入领会《大学英语课程教学要求》和建构主义学习理论的基础上,在对国内外医学教育中实施的PBL进行深入的理论研究和实践研究的前提下,借鉴了用于临床教学的PBL方法,同时吸收了传统课堂的LBL(讲座式学习)方法的精髓,首先从理论上构建了一套在大学英语课堂教学环境中以英语作为外语(EFL)的医学生的LPBL模式。该模式涵盖了教学目标、教学方法、教学环境、教师/学生作用、教学资料、教学管理、教学评价等主要方面,同时融合了教育部在《大学英语课程教学要求》里设计的“基于计算机和课堂的英语多媒体教学模式”与“基于计算机的英语学习过程”。
为了验证整合后的LPBL模式的有效性,本文作者对天津医科大学2008级临床医学、麻醉学、医学影像学三个专业4个班级的112名学生进行了为期18周的教学实验。本研究的目的在于考察在大学英语教学环境中,LPBL模式对以英语为外语的中国语言学习者英语水平的提高和多种职业技能的培养所起的作用,着重考察学生英语听说水平的提高及其自主学习能力、合作学习能力、解决问题能力、批判性思维能力及其倾向的提高,最终为医学生的专业学习和终身学习奠定学习基础。
该研究以测试、问卷为主,同时采纳观察、访谈等辅助方法,通过对实验组和对照组实施不同的教学模式(构建的LPBL模式和传统的LBL模式)所表现出的英语综合水平和相关的职业技能的差异性回答研究问题。研究方法采用定量研究与定性研究相结合的方法。定量研究方法包括语言能力测试(前测和后测)、批判性思维倾向问卷调查(前测和后测)、四种职业相关技能问卷调查(每种技能各三次);定性研究方法包括课题学习过程中开展的四项观察活动,含学生个人观察、小组观察(2套)、教师观察,以及学生访谈。全部数据收集后用SPSS 16.0统计软件包进行分析,说明众多数据之间的关系。
定量研究与定性研究拟解决的问题:
1.经过18周的实验,LPBL模式能否促进实验组学生的英语语言水平的提高?
2.经过18周的实验,实验组学生的职业技能是否比对照组要高?
3.LPBL模式下与LBL模式下的学生的批判性思维倾向是否有所不同?
4.实验组学生的职业技能与其英语水平是否具有相关性?
5.整合后的LPBL模式是否适用于大学英语课堂教学环境中以英语作为外语的医学生的学习?
此外,由此衍生的假设也在本文做了验证。
我们可以得出结论:大学英语教学环境中实施LPBL模式,尽管该模式作用下的英语语言水平有所不同,但总的说来,它能有效地提高中国英语学习者的英语听说水平及其批判性思维倾向,帮助医学生构建学科知识,提高他们的解决问题、自主学习、合作学习、批判性思维等与职业相关的技能。LPBL模式可以作为大学英语课堂教学环境中众多教与学方法当中的一种选择,尤其是当语言学习者通过了大学英语六级考试并达到了《大学英语教学要求》规定的“较高要求”之后。LPBL模式下的学习者受到激励去学习学科内容和语言,在与他人的合作学习中有更多的机会进行目标语技能练习及其职业相关的技能练习,从而导致语言习得,特别是体现在听说技能上的语言习得的产生。
本研究在国内大学英语课堂进行中率先提出LPBL模式,该创新点体现在以下几个方面:
1.立足于大学英语课堂教学,以提升医学生英语语言水平和各种相关的学习能力为切入点,从医学院校培养全面发展人才的视角,在对国内外医学教育中实施的PBL进行深入的理论研究和实践研究的前提下,结合传统的LBL模式,构建了一套在大学课堂环境下以英语作为外语的医学生的LPBL学习模式。
2. LPBL模式旨在强调对医学生自主学习能力、合作学习能力、解决问题能力、批判性思维能力及倾向的培养,最终为医学生的专业学习和终身学习奠定基础。它是对传统的LBL的一种继承,也是对临床医学上PBL的一种发展,是二者的有机结合,对我国大学英语教学,尤其是医学院校的大学英语教学模式具有一定的参考和借鉴作用。
3.在理论上,丰富了建构主义以学生为中心的教与学的理论内涵。
4.在研究方法上,采用定量研究与定性研究相结合的方法,通过测试、问卷、观察、访谈等形式的实验教学,掌握了大量原始数据,本研究的结果为医学院校管理层对大学英语教学目标的定位、课程设置、课堂师生关系的处理、课堂组织形式、教学环境的改进、教学评价体系的完善,以及教师培训等方面提供了较为全面的实际参考价值。
Based on the dual reform of College English teaching and medical education, this dissertation makes a tentative study on an LPBL (Lecture & Problem-Based Learning) model for medical undergraduates in EFL context. This new model was originated at the Faculty of Medicine at McMaster University in Canada, where the teachers adopted the clinical Problem-based Learning (PBL) approach and placed their students in an authentic context in which the problems were always complex, ill-structured and open-ended so that the students could gain a deep understanding of the problems in the process of learning and could finally solve them to attain the goal of autonomous leaning and lifelong learning skills by means of working collaboratively in small groups. The teaching goal of PBL comes in line with that of both the CECR (College English Curriculum Requirements) and the GMER (Global Minimal Essential Requirements).
The theoretical basis for PBL is constructivism. Advocated and developed by cognitive psychologists John Dewey, Jean Piaget, Lev Vygotsky and Jerome Bruner, constructivism is considered as the most influential trend in western educational psychology and the most important concept in worldwide education reform. Constructivism advocates student-centered learning under the guidance of teacher, assumes knowledge is actively constructed by learners as they attempt to make sense of their experience, and learning is a personal interpretation of the world, so PBL just conforms to the requirement of CECR.
Guided by CECR and constructivist learning theories, the author conducts a literature research home and abroad on clinical PBL, both in theory and in practice. Based on the clinical PBL, the author absorbs the essence of traditional LBL in classroom context and theoretically designs an LPBL model used for EFL medical students in the context of College English classroom instruction. This model covers some key items: teaching objectives, teaching methods, teaching context, tutor’s role and learner’s role, teaching materials, teaching administration and evaluation etc. In addition, this LPBL model combines the current“Computer- and Classroom-Based College English Teaching Model”and the“Process of Computer- Based English Learning”designed by the MOE in CECR.
In order to testify the effectiveness of the LPBL model, the author conducts a pilot study within 18 weeks among the total of 112 Year 2 (Grade 2008) undergraduates, majored in clinical medicine, anesthesia, and medical imaging in Tianjin Medical University (TJMU). The purpose of this study is to examine the Chinese EFL learners’English proficiency gains and their professionalism-related skill factors affecting their achievements under LPBL model, focusing on the learners’achievements in their English listening and speaking, self-directed learning, collaborative learning, problem solving, critical thinking and their internal motivation promotion in the context of College English classroom instruction so as to pave a way for their further professional learning and lifelong learning.
The research was conducted between experimental group and control group mainly through tests and questionnaire surveys, supplemented with observations and interviews. Differences in learners’English language proficiency and professionalism-related skills between the two groups in different models (the integrated LPBL model and the conventional LBL model) are illustrated to address the research questions. The quantitative research and the qualitative research are employed in the experiments. A series of test-based and skills-oriented experiments involved in the quantitative research—language proficiency test (pre-/post test); critical thinking disposition test (CTDI) (pre-/post test); 4 sorts of professionalism-related skills test (3 tests for each skill)—and classroom-based and process-oriented surveys by individual /group /tutor class observations and students’interview in the qualitative aspect are conducted. All the data collected are processed with the software SPSS 16.0 to understand the relationships among the multiple data sources. Both the quantitative research and the qualitative research are designed to address the following 5 questions:
1. Could LPBL model improve experimental group students’language proficiency after 18 week experiment?
2. Are experimental group students’professionalism-related skills higher than those of control group students after 18 week experiment?
3. Is there any difference in students’critical thinking disposition (CTD) between LPBL process and LBL process?
4. Do experimental group students’professionalism-related skills have a correlation with their English knowledge?
5. Is the integrated LPBL model suitable for medical students in EFL class?
Besides, the above question-generated hypotheses are also explored in the study. Conclusions can be drawn from the research that in general the integrated LPBL model is an effective way to develop Chinese EFL learners’English listening and speaking proficiency—though effects of LPBL on their English language proficiency are differentiated, foster their CTD and upgrade their professionalism-related skills, including problem-solving skills, self-directed learning skills, collaborative learning skills, and critical thinking skills. LPBL thus can be an option among the various language teaching and learning methods in the context of College English classroom instruction, especially after the learners have passed CET-6 and met the intermediate requirements of the CECR. Learners in the LPBL model are motivated to learn both content and language and have more opportunities to practice the target language skills and the professionalism-related skills while collaboratively learning with each other, which enhances their language acquisition especially in their listening and speaking.
This study is conducted in the context of Chinese College English classroom and initiates LPBL model for medical students. The innovations lie in the following points.
1. The study is based on College English classroom instruction and an in-depth theoretical research and action research on clinical PBL in medical field, home and abroad, taking promoting medical students’English language proficiency and relevant learning skills as the breakthrough point to integrate the traditional LBL model and construct an LPBL model for EFL medical students in the context of College English classroom instruction in perspective of fostering all-round medical talents.
2. LBL model focuses on promoting medical students’problem solving skills, self-directed learning skills, collaborative learning skills, and the CTDI, paving a way for their professional learning and lifelong learning. The combined LPBL is either a heritage of traditional LBL or a development of clinical PBL. It is certain that LPBL model would bring a lot of instructive enlightenment worthy of their reference for Chinese colleges and universities, particularly for the medical universities, in College English classroom instruction.
3. Theoretically, LPBL model has enriched constructivist learning and teaching theories, centered on learners.
4. In research methodology, both the quantitative research and the qualitative research are conducted by means of series of experiment methods—test, questionnaire, observation, and interview so that the researcher has gathered a mass of first-hand data. The findings and results of the study would provide the institutional managements with a comparatively comprehensive and valuable reference to College English teaching objectives, course design, roles of teachers and students in class, class organization, learning environment, evaluation, teacher training and so on. In particular, the findings could provide a new teaching model for Chinese College English teaching reform.
引文
1. Aydini, Julia Mathews. Problem-Based Learning and Adult English Language Learners. CAELA Brief. April 2007.
2. Abbot, Martha G. 1989. Understanding One Another’s Englishes. Kennedy: 138-144.
3. Albanese, M. A., & Mitchell, S. 1993. Problem-based learning: A review of literature on its outcomes and implementation issues. Academic Medicine, 68 (1): 52-81.
4. Alessi, S. N., & Trollip, S.R. 2001. Multimedia for learning: methods and development. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
5. Allen, D. E., Duch, B. J., & Groh, S. E. 1996. The power of problem-based learning in teaching introductory science courses.”In L. Wilkerson & W. H. Gijselaers (Eds.), Bringing problem-based learning to higher education: Theory and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass: 43-52.
6. American Philosophical Association. 1990. Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. The Delphi Report. Committee on Pre-College Philosophy. ERIC Doc. No. ED 315423.
7. Anwarul Azim Majumder, Urban D’Souza, Sayeeda Rahman. 2004. Trends in medical education: Challenges and directions for need-based reforms of medical training in South-East Asia. Retrieved on August 15, 2010, from http://www.indianjmedsci.org/article.asp?issn=0019-5359;year=2004;volume=58;issue=9;spage=369;epage=380;aulast=Majumder#top. Indian Journal of medical Sciences, 58, 9: 369-380.
8. Astin, A. W., Banta, T. W., Cross, K. P., El-Khawas, E., Ewell, P. T., Hutchings, P., Marchese, T. J., McMClenney, K. M., Mentkowshi, M., Miller, M. A., Moran, E. T., Wright B. D. 1996. AAHE Assessment Forum, July 25. Retrieved on June 1, 2010, fromhttp://www.academicprograms.calpoly.edu/pdfs/assess/nine_principles_good_practice.pdf.
9. Banta, T. W., Black, K. E., & Kline, K. A. 2000. PBL 2000 plenary address offers evidence for and against problem based learning, PBL Insight to solve, to learn, together. A newsletter for undergraduate Problem Based Learning from Stamford, 3(3).
10. Barron, B. J. S., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J. Moore, A., Zech, L. & Bransford, J. D. 1998. Doing with understanding—lessons from research on problem- and project-based learning. Journal of the Learning Science, 7(3-4):271-311.
11. Barrows, H. S. 1984. A Specific, Problem-based, Self-directed Learning Method Designed to Teach Medical Problem-solving Skills, Self-learning Skills and EnhanceKnowledge Retention and Recall. In Tutorials in Problem-based Learning. H. G. Schmidt and M. L. De Volder (Ed.). Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum.
12. Barrows, H. S. 1986. A taxonomy of problem-base learning methods. Medical Education, 20: 481-486.
13. Barrows, H. S. 1992. The Tutorial Process. Springfield: Southern Illinois University.
14. Barrows, H. S. & Mayers, A. C. 1993. Problem-Based Learning in Secondary Schools. Springfield, IL: Problem-Based Learning Institute, Lanphier High School and Southern Illinois University Medical School. Unpublished paper.
15. Barrows, Howard S., Tamblyn, Robyn M. 1980. Problem-Based Learning: An Approach to Medical Education. New York: Springer Publishing Company.
16. Barrows, H. S., Tamblyn, R. M. 1985. How to design a problem-based curriculum for the pre-clinical years. New York: Springer Publishing Company.
17. Beacham, Cindy V. & Shambaugh, Neal. 2007. Advocacy as a Problem-Based Learning (PBL) Teaching Strategy. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 2007, Volume 19, Number 3, pp315-324. Retrieved on June 2, 2010, from http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/pdf/IJTLHE240.pdf.
18. Berkson, L. 1993. Problem-based learning: have the expectations been met? Academic Medicine, vol. 68, No. 10: S79-S88.
19. Bligh, J. 1995. Problem based, small group learning. British Medical Journal, 311: 342-343.
20. Bloom, B., Englehart, M. Furst, E., Hill, W., & Krathwohl, D. 1956. Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York, Toronto: Longmans, Green.
21. Blumberg, P., & Michael, J. 1992. Development of self-directed learning behaviors in a partially teacher-directed problem-based learning curriculum. Taylor & Francis: Teaching and Learning in Medicine (Teach Learn Med), 4: 3-8.
22. Bond, Linda. A. 1996. Norm- and criterion-referenced testing. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 5(2). Retrieved on June 1, 2010, from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=5&n=2.
23. Boston, C. 2002. The concept of formative assessment. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 8(9). Retrieved on May 31, 2010, from http://PAREonline. net/getvn.asp?v=8&n=9.
24. Boud, David. 1985. Problem-based Learning in Education for the Professions. HERDSA.
25. Boud, David, Feletti, Grahame. 1991. Introduction. In D. Boud, & G. Feletti (Ed.), thechallenge of problem-based learning. London: Kogan Page, 13-20.
26. Boud, David, Feletti, Grahame. 1997. The Challenge of Problem-based Learning (2nd Ed.). New York: St. Martin’s Press.
27. Bridges, E. M., Hallinger, P. 1995. Implementing problem-based learning in leadership development. Eugene: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management.
28. Bridges, E., Hallinger, P. 1992. Problem Based Learning For Administrators. Clearinghouse on Educational Management, University of Oregon.
29. Brown, Collins and Duguid. 1989. Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning, Educational Researcher, 18: 32-42.
30. Brown, H. D. 2002. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching, Third Edition. Pearson Education North Asia Limited. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
31. Candlin, Christopher N & Hall, David R. 2005. Applied Linguistics in Action Series [A]. Rost, Michael. Teaching and Researching: Listening [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press: 119-120.
32. Candlin, Christopher N & Hall, David R. 2005. Applied Linguistics in Action Series [A]. Hughes, Rebecca. Teaching and Researching: Speaking [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press: 87-88.
33. Candlin, Christopher N & Hall, David R. 2005. Applied Linguistics in Action Series [A]. Grabe, William and Stoller, Fredricka L. Teaching and Researching: Reading [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press: 83.
34. Candlin, Christopher N & Hall, David R. 2005. Applied Linguistics in Action Series [A]. Hatim, Basil. Teaching and Researching: Translation [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press: 117.
35. Caprio, M. W. 1994. Easing into constructivism: Connecting meaningful learning with student experience. Arlington, VA.: National Science Teachers: Journal of College Science Teaching, 23(4): 210-212.
36. Chen Yukai, Yang Kunyuan. 2006. Using Problem-based Learning Teaching Model to Promote the Self-directed Science Learning Readiness and Science Learning Motivation of Eight-grade Students. Hong Kong: APERA Conference.
37. Clark, Beth, Griffin, Jessie, and Turner, Dana. 2007. Social Constructivism, Sorting Out Variations on the Terms“Constructionism and Constructivism”(Table). Retrieved on July 30, 2010,fromhttp://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Social_Constructivism#General_Perspectives_of_Social_Constructivism_on_Learning.Tomorrow’s Technologies.
39. Cognition & Technology Group at Vanderbilt. 1992. The Jasper experiment: An exploration of issues in learning and instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40 (1), 65-80.
40. Cohen, E. G. 1994. Designing groupwork: Strategies for heterogeneous classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.
41. Coles, C. R. 1985. Differences between conventional and problem-based curricula in their students approaches to studying, Medical Education, vol. 19: 308-309.
42. Colley, Kabba. 2008. Project-Based Science Instruction: A PRIMER: The Science Teacher.
43. Collins, A. S., Brown, J.S. & Newman, S.E. 1989. Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing and mathematics. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 453-494.
44. Comber, Geoffrey, Zeiderman, Howard, Maistrellis, Nicholas. 2002. Touchstones Volume C—Teachers Guide. Maryland: Touchstones Discussion Project.
45. Cromwell, L. S.1992. Assessing critical thinking. In C. A. Barnes (Ed.), Critical Thinking: Educational Imperative. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass Publishers. (77): 37-50.
46. Dart, Jon. 2009. Learning and Teaching Guides: Problem Based Learning in Sport, Leisure and Social Sciences. The Higher Education Academy Network for Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism.
47. Dart, Jon, Trinity, Leeds & All Saints. 2009. Learning and Teaching Guide: Problem Based Learning in Sport, Leisure and Social Sciences. The Higher Education Academy Network for Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism, Retrieved on June 4, 2010, from http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/hlst/documents/resources/ssg_pbl_casestudies.pdf.
48. Derry, S. J. 1999. A Fish called peer learning: Searching for common themes. In A. M. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.).
49. Dewey, J. 1916. Democracy and Education. New York: The Macmillan Company.
50. Dewey, J. 1933. How We Think. New York: Health.
51. Dochy, Filip, Segers, Mien, Bossche, Van den Piet, Gijbels, David. 2003. Effects of PBL: a meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction. Elsevier Science Ltd., 13: 533–568.
52. Dolmans, D. H. J. M., & Schmidt, H.G. 1994. What drives the student in problem-based Learning?. Medical Education, 28: 372-380.
53. Driscoll, M. P. 1993. Psychology of learning for instruction. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
54. Duch, Barbara J, Groh, Susan E., Allen, Deborah E. 2001. The Power of Problem-Based Learning: A Practical“How To”for Teaching Undergraduate Courses in Any Discipline. Sterling, Virginia: Stylus Publishing, LLC.
55. Duffy, T. M. 1994. Corporate and Community Education: Achieving success in the information society. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University. Unpublished paper.
56. Eagle, C. E. 1992. Problem-based learning. Mark Allen Group: British Journal of Hospital Medicine (Br J Hosp Med), 48: 325-329.
57. Engel, C. E. 1991. Not Just a Method but a Way of Learning. The challenge of problem based learning. In D. Boud & G. P.Felletti, (Ed.). London: Kogan-Page, 1991: 22-33.
58. Ellis, R. 1985. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
59. Facione, Peter. A. 2010. Critical Thinking: What It Is and Why It Counts. Retrieved on April 16, 2010, from http://www.insightassessment.com/pdf_files/what&why2007.pdf.
60. Facione, N. C., Facione, P. A. 1997. Critical Thinking Assessment in Nursing Education Programs: An Aggregate Data Analysis. Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press. 1997: 92-93.
61. Facione, P., Giancarlo, C., Facione, N. & Gainen, J. 1995. The Disposition Toward Critical Thinking. Journal of General Education, 44, (1): 1-25.
62. Facione, N. C., Facione, P. A., Giancarlo, C.A. F. 2001. California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory: Inventory Manual. Millbrae, CA: Insight Assessment.
63. Facione, N.C., Facione, P. A., Sanchez, C. A. 1994. Critical Thinking disposition as a measure of competent clinical judgment: the development of the California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory. Nursing Education, 33(8): 345-350.
64. Filip, Dochy, Mien, Segers, Bossche Van den Piet, Gijbels, David. 2003. Effects of PBL: a meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction. Elsevier Science Ltd., 13: 533–568.
65. Finkle, S.L., & Torp, L.L. 1995. Introductory Documents. Illinois Math and Science Academy.
66. Finucane, P. M., Johnson, S. M., & Prideaux, D. J. 1998. Problem-based learning: Its rationale and efficacy. Australasian Medical Publishing Company Proprietary Limited (AMPCo): The Medical Journal of Australia (Med J Aust.), 168: 445-448.
67. Fjuk, A., Bennedsen, J., Berge, O., & Caspersen, M. 2004. Learning object orientation through ICT-mediated apprenticeship. In Advanced Learning Technologies, 2004: Proceedings. IEEE International Conference: 380-384.
68. Gage, Nathan (Ed.). 1964. Handbook of Research on Teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally & Company.
69. Gallagher, S. A., Stepien, W. J. & Rosenthal, H. 1992. The effects of problem-based learning on problem solving, Gifted Child Quarterly, 36 (4): 195-200.
70. Galloway, Chad. 2007. Vygotsky’s Constructivism. Retrieved on July 30, 2010, from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Vygotsky’s_constructivism.
71. Gijselaers, W. 1995. Perspectives on problem-based learning. In Gijselaers, W., Tempelaar, D., Keizer, P., Blommaert, J., Bernard, E & Kapser, H (Ed.). Educational Innovation in Economics and Business Administration: The Case of Problem-Based Learning: 39-52.
72. Glaser, R. 1991. The maturing of the relationship between the science of learning and cognition and educational practice. Learning and Instruction, 99 (1): 129-144.
73. Grabe, W. 1998. English, Information Access, and Technology Transfer: A Rationale for English as an International Language [J]. World Englishes, 7(1): 63-72.
74. Gredler, Margaret, and Shields, Carol. 2004. Does No One read Vygotsky’s Words? Commentary on Glassman. Educational Researcher 33 (2): 22.
75. Greenspan, Alan. 2000. The Evolving Demand for Skills. Remarks at the US Department of Labor National Skills Summit, Aprill 11 2000. In Learning for the 21st Century—A Report and Mile Guide for 21st Century Skills.
76. Hannafin, M. J., & Hooper, S. R. 1993. Learning Principles. In M. Fleming & W. Levie (Ed.), Instructional message design: principles from behavioral and cognitive sciences (2nd Ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
77. He, An E. 2005. Learning and Teaching English in the People’s Republic of China. Teaching English To The World: History, Curriculum, and Practice (Edited by George Braine). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
78. Hmelo-Silver, Cindy E., and Barrows, Howard S. 2006. Goals and Strategies of a Problem-based Learning Facilitator. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, Vol. 1 (1): 21-39.
79. Hmelo, C. E. & Ferrari, M. 1997. The problem-based leading tutorial—cultivating higher order thinking skills. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20(4): 401-422.
80. Honebein, P., Duffy, T.M., & Fishman, B. 1993. Constructivism and the design of learning environments: Context and authentic activities for learning. In Thomas M. Duffy, Joost Lowyck, and David Jonassen (Ed.), Designing environments for constructivist learning. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
81. Institute of Curriculum Studies. 2001. A Collection of twentieth century curriculumsand syllabi for secondary and primary schools in China. Beijing: People’s Education Press.
82. James, M. A. 2006. Teaching for transfer in ELT. ELT Journal. 60(2):151-159.
83. Kansas State Board of Education. 2000. Curricular Standards for Foreign Language. Retrieved on June 26, 2010, from http://www.ksde.org/portals/0/Standards%20Documents/Other/flstd.pdf.
84. Kellough, R. D., Kellough, N. G., Kim, E.C. 1999. Secondary school teaching: A guide to methods and resources: planning for competence (3rd Ed.). New Jersey: Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hill.
85. Laffey, J., T. Tupper, D. Musser, J. Wedman. 1998. A computer-mediated support system for project-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 46(1): 73-86.
86. Larsson, Jon. 2001. Problem-Based Learning: A possible approach to language education? Retrieved on July 4, 2010, from http://www.nada.kth.se/~jla/docs/PBL.pdf.
87. Lederer, Jeffrey M. 2007. Disposition Toward Critical Thinking Among Occupational Therapy Students. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy. 61 (5): 519-526.
88. LeJeune, N. F. 2002. Problem-based learning instruction versus traditional instruction on self-directed learning, motivation, and grades of undergraduate computer science students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado, Denver.
89. Lieux, E. M. 1996. A comparative study of learning in lectures versus problem-based format. About Teaching, 50: 25-27.
90. Machanick, Philip. 2007. A Social Construction Approach to Computer Science Education. Routledge: Computer Science Education, 17(1): 1-20.
91. Margetson, D. 1991. Why is problem-based learning a challenge? In D. Boud, & G. Feletti (Ed.), The challenge of problem-based learning. London: Kogan-Page.
92. Marzano, R.1998. What are the General Skills of Thinking and Reasoning and How Do You Teach Them? The Clearing House, 71 (5): 268-73.
93. McMahon, M. 1997. Social Constructivism and the World Wide Web---A Paradigm for Learning. Paper presented at the ASCILITE conference. Perth, Australia.
94. Mentis, M., Ryba, K. and Annan, J. 2001. Creating authentic on-line communities of professional practice. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education Conference, Fremantle.
95. Merrill, M. D. 1991. Constructivism and instructional design. Educational Technology, 45-53.
96. Merrill, M. D. 2002. A Pebble-in-the-pond Model for Instructional Design,Performance Improvement 41 (7). Retrieved on July 24, 2010, from http://www.csap.bham.ac.uk/resources/project_reports/ShowOverview.asp?id=4.
97. Mezirow J. 1990. Fostering Critical Reflection in Adulthood. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
98. Milter, R. G. & Stinson, J. E. 1994. Educating leaders for the new competitive environment. In G. Gijselaers, S. Tempelaar & S. Keizer S. (Eds.). Educational innovation in economics and business administration: The case of probelm-based learning. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
99. National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project. 1999. Standards for Foreign Language Learning: Preparing for the 21st Century. New York: Yonkers.
100.Newby, T. J., Stepich, D. A., Lehman, J. D., & Russell, J. D. 1996. Instructional technology for teaching and learning: Designing instruction, integrating computers, and using media. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.
101.Newman, Mark. 2004. A pilot systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of Problem Based Learning—On behalf of the Campbell Collaboration Systematic Review Group on the effectiveness of Problem Based Learning. London: Middlesex University.
102.Norman, G. R., & Schmidt, A. G. 1992. The psychological basis of problem-based learning: A review of the evidence. Academic Medicine, 67: 557-565.
103.Nunan, D. 1989. Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
104.O’neill P. A. 2000. The role of basic sciences in a problem-based learning clinical curriculum. Blackwell Publishing Ltd: Medical Education, 34(8): 608-613.
105.Pearson Education Limited. 2004. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. Hong Kong: Pearson Education Asia Limited, Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
106.Peng Meici, Wang Guocheng, Chen Jile, et al. 2004. Validity and Reliability of the Chinese Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory. Chinese Journal of Nursing, 2004: 9.
107.Peterson, Michael. 1997. Skills to enhance problem-based learning. Med Educ Online [serial online]. Retrieved on August 5, 2010, from http://www.utmb.edu/meo/. 1997: 2, 3.
108.Peterson, Tim O. 2004. So You’re Thinking of Trying Problem Based Learning?: Three Critical Success Factors for Implementation. Journal of Management Education, Vol. 28, 5: 630-647.
109.Piaget, J. 1985. The Equilibration of Cognitive Structures: The Central Problem ofIntellectual Development. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
110.Piaget, Jean. 1968. Genetic Epistemology. Columbia University Press.
111.Piaget, Jean. 2001. Retrieved on November 22, 2009, from http://education.indiana.edu/~cep/courses/p540/piagsc.html.
112.Preston, Vogel, Robert. 2006. Education. New York: McGraw-Hill, 187-190.
113.Prpic, K., & Hadgraft, R. 2002. Problem solving objectives of problem-based learning. Retrieved on June 1, 2010, from http://www. dlsweb.rmit.edu.acc/eng/beng0001/LEARNING/strategy/pblobjectives.html.
114.Quiocho, Alice L., Ulanoff, Sharon H. 2009. Differentiated Literacy Instruction for English Language Learners. Pearson Education, Inc.
115.Richardson, Virginia (Ed.). 1997. Constructivist Teacher Education—Building A World of New Understandings. London: Routledge Falmer.
116.Rideout, E. & Carpio, B. 2001. The problem based learning model of nursing education. In Rideout E. (Ed.). Transforming Nursing Education through problem-based learning. Sudbury, Jones & Bartlett: 21-45.
117.Salomon, G., and Perkins, D. N. 1989. Rocky roads to transfer: Rethinking mechanisms of a neglected phenomenon. Educational Psychology, 24: 113-142.
118.Savin-Baden, M. 2000. Problem-based learning in higher education: untold stories. Buckingham, SRHE/Open University Press.
119.Savin-Baden, Maggi and Wilkie, Kay. 2006. Problem-based Learning Online. Berkshire: Open University Press.
120.Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M.1995. Problem-based learning: An Instructional model and its constructivist framework. Educational Technology, 35: 31-37.
121.Savery, John R. 2006. Overview of Problem-based Learning: Definitions and Distinctions. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning. vol. 1 (1): 9-20.
122.Savery, John R. & Duffy, Thomas M. 1996. Problem Based Learning: An Instructional Model and Its Constructivist Framework. In Wilson, Brent. G. (Ed.). 1996. Constructivist Learning Environments: Case studies in instructional design. New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications. 2001. Problem Based Learning: An Instructional model and its constructivist framework. CRLT Technical Report, 16-01. Bloomington: Indianan University.
123.Schifter, D. & Simon, M. A. 1992. Assessing teachers’development of a constructivist view of learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 8: 187-197.
124.Schmidt, H. G. 1993. Foundations of problem based learning; some explanatory notes.Medical Education, vol. 27, No. 422: 432.
125.Schmidt, H. G. 1998. Problem-based learning—Does it prepare medical students to become better doctors? The Medical Journal of Australia, 168: 429-430.
126.Schmidt, H. G. 1983. Problem-based learning: rationale and description. Medical Education, vol. 17: 11-16.
127.Schoenfeld, A. H. 1987. What’s all the fuss about metacognition? In A. H. Schoenfeld (Ed.) Cognitive Science and Mathematics Education. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
128.Schon, D. 1987. Educating the reflective practitioner. Oxford: Jossey Bass.
129.Seifer, Sarena D., 1998. Recent and Emerging Trends in Undergraduate Medical Education—Curricular Responses to a Rapidly Changing Health Care System. West Med, 168: 400-411.
130.Shin, K.R. 1998. Critical thinking ability and clinical decision making skills among senior nursing students in associate and baccalaureate programs in Korea. J Advan Nurs. 27(2):414-418.
131.Simon, P. R. J. 1991. Constructive learning: The role of the learner. In T. M. Duffy, J. Lowyck & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.). Designing environments for constructivist learning. NATO-ASI series. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
132.Smits, P., Verbeek, J., & De Buisonje, C. 2002. Problem based learning in continuing medical education: a review of controlled evaluation studies. British Medical Journal, vol. 324 (2002a): 153-156.
133.Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. 1992. Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawerence Erlbaum Associates, 57-76.
134.Springer, C. W., & Borthick, A. F. 2007. Improving Performance in Accounting: Evidence for Insisting on Cognitive Conflict Tasks. Issues In Accounting Education, 22(1): 1-19.
135.Stevenson, J. A. 1928. The project method of teaching. New York: Macmillan.
136.Strobel, Johannes and Barneveld, Angela van. 2009. When is PBL More Effective? A Meta-synthesis of Meta-analyses: Comparing PBL to Conventional Classrooms. Retrieved on July 24, 2010, from http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1046&context=ijpbl. volume 3, No. 1.
137.Swearingen, Richard. 2002. A Primer : Diagnostic, Formative and Summative Assessment. Retrieved on June 1, 2010, from http://slackernet.org/assessment.htm.
138.The National College English Testing Committee. 2006. The Testing Syllabus for College English Test-Band 6(2006 Revised Edition). Retrieved on May 25, 2010, from http://www.en.cet.edu.cn/dg6displaynews.asp?id=302.
139.The Campbell Collaboration Systematic Review Group on the Effectiveness of Problem-based Learning. 2003. A pilot systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of Problem Based Learning. Newcastle upon Tyne (UK): University of Newcastle upon Tyne.
140.The University of Hong Kong, Award Presentation Ceremony For Excellence In Teaching and Research 2008. Feb. 2009. A Message from the Vice-Chancellor. Hong Kong: The University of Hong Kong. Retrieved on October 18, 2010, from http://www.hku.hk/award.
141.Tiwari, Agnes, Chan, S., Sullivan, P. L., Dixon, A. S., Tang, C. 1999. Enhancing Students’Critical Thinking through Problem-Based Learning. In J. Marsh (Ed.) Implementing Problem Based Learning Project: Proceedings of the First Asia Pacific Conference on Problem Based Learning: 75-86. Hong Kong: The University Grants Committee of Hong Kong, Teaching Development Project.
142.Tiwari, Agnes, Lai, Patrick, So, Mike & Yuen, Kwan. 2006. A comparison of the effects of problem-based learning and lecturing on the development of students’critical thinking. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Medical Education, 40: 547-554.
143.Torp, Linda and Sage, Sara. 1998. Problems as Possibilities: Problem-Based Learning for K-12 Education. USA: Association for Supervision Curriculum Development.
144.Uden, Lorna and Beaumont, Chris. 2006. Technology and Problem-Based Learning. Hershey·London·Melbourne·Singapore: Information Science Publishing.
145.University of Delaware, Office of Educational Assessment. 2010. Critical Thinking Value Rubric. Retrieved on March 18, 2010, from http://assessment.udel.edu/sites/assessment.udel.edu/files/rubrics/CriticalThinking.pdf
146.University of Delaware, Office of Educational Assessment. 2010. Foundations and Skills for Lifelong Learning Value Rubric. Retrieved on March 18, 2010, from http://assessment.udel.edu/sites/assessment.udel.edu/files/rubrics/LifelongLearning.pdf.
147.University of Delaware, Office of Educational Assessment. 2010. Problem Solving Value Rubric. Retrieved on March 18, 2010, from http://assessment.udel.edu/sites/assessment.udel.edu/files/rubrics/ProblemSolving.pdf.
148.University of Delaware, Office of Educational Assessment. 2010. Teamwork Value Rubric. Retrieved on March 18, 2010, from http://assessment.udel.edu/sites/assessment.udel.edu/files/rubrics/Teamwork.pdf.
149.Van den Bossche, P., Gijbels, D., & Dochy, F. 2000. Does problem based learning educate problem solvers? A meta-analysis on the effects of problem based learning.VII EDINEB Conference, Newport Beach USA.
150.Vernon, D. T. A., & Blake, R. L. 1993. Does problem-based learning work? A meta-analysis of evaluative research. Academic Medicine, 68(1): 550- 563.
151.Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
152.Vygotsky, L. S. 1991. Pedagogical Psychology (2nd Ed.). Moscow: Pedagogika, 118.
153.Vygotsky, L. S. 2007. Social Development Theory. Retrieved on July 30, 2010, from http://www.learning-theories.com/vygotskys-social-learning-theory.html.
154.Walsh, Allyn. 2005. The Tutor in Problem based learning: A Novice’s Guide (Ed. By Annette F. Sciarra). Hamilton: McMaster University. Retrieved on August 14, 2010, from http://www.fhs.mcmaster.ca/facdev/documents/tutorPBL.pdf.
155.Walker, Allan, Bridges, Edwin, Chan, Benjamin. 1996. Wisdom gained, wisdom given: instituting PBL in a Chinese culture. Journal of Educational Administration. MCB University Press. Vol. 34 (5): 12-31.
156.Walton, H. J. & Matthews, M. B. 1989. Essentials of Problem Based Learning. Medical Education, 23: 542-558.
157.Ward, J. D., & Lee, C. L. 2002. A review of problem-based learning. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education, 20 (1).
158.White, W.F. & Hargrove, R. 1996. Are Those Preparing to Teach Prepared to Teach Critical Thinking? Journal of Instructional Psychology, 23: 117-20.
159.WHO. 1992. Towards the assessment of quality in medical education. Geneva: World Health Organization.
160.Wiggins, G. 1990. The case for authentic assessment. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 2 (2). Retrieved on June 1, 2010, from http://PAREonline. net/getvn.asp?v=2&n=2.
161.Wikipedia. 2010. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Problem-based learning. Retrieved on July 24, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem-based_learning.
162.Wikipedia. 2010. Jean Piaget. Retrieved on July 24, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Piaget#Theory.
163.Wikipedia. 2010. Project-based learning. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved onJuly 24, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project-based_learning.
164.Wikipedia. 2010. Constructivism. Retrieved on July 24, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_(learning_theory).
165.Wolf, F. 1993. Problem-based learning and Meta-analyis: can we see the forest through the trees? Academic Medicine, vol. 68, No. 7: 542-545.
166.Wong, Shelley. 2006. Dialogic Approaches to TESOL. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: 38.
167.Zeiderman, Howard. 2003. Mapping the Future—A Reader’s Guide to Group Discussion. Maryland: Touchstones Discussion Project.
168.韩其顺,陆慈,董亚芬. 1994.执行大学英语教学大纲的回顾与思考[J].北京:教学与教材研究(6).
169.何克抗. 1997.建构主义——革新传统教学理论基础[J].电化教育研究. (4): 25-27.
170.全国大学英语四、六级考试委员会. 2000.大学英语四、六级考试口语考试实考试卷汇编.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
171.陈坚林. 2008.要求更完善,方向更明晰——对07版《大学英语课程教学要求》的新解读[J].上海:外语电化教学(119期).
172.张尧学. 2002.加强实用性英语教学,提高大学生英语综合能力[J].北京:中国高等教育.
173.黄秀云. 2008.中文版批判性思维特质测量表于台湾临床护理人员之测试[D].台湾:“国立”成功大学.
174.黄亚玲,郑孝清,金润铭,兰黎,周东风. 2005. PBL教学模式探索[J].武汉:医学与社会,18, (6): 56-57.
175.教育部高等教育司. 2007.大学英语课程教学要求[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
176.教育部高等教育司. 2004.大学英语课程教学要求(试行) [M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
177.教育部. 2003.普通高中英语课程标准(实验) [M].北京:人民教育出版社.
178.罗清旭,杨鑫辉. 2001.《加利福尼亚批判性思维倾向问卷》中文版的初步修订[J].北京:心理发展与教育.
179.罗清旭,杨鑫辉. 2002.加利福尼亚批判性思维技能测验[J].上海:心理科学, 25 (6): 740-741.
180.吴启迪. 2005.教育部副部长吴启迪同志在大学英语四、六级考试改革新闻发布会上的讲话[J].上海:外语界,2005年第2期(总第106期).
181.杨惠中,Weir. C. 1998.大学英语四、六级考试效度研究[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
182.国家中长期教育改革和发展规划纲要领导小组办公室. 2010. 2. 28.国家中长期教育改革和发展规划纲要(2010-2020)(公开征求意见稿).北京:新华社. Retrieved on May, 26, 2010, from http://news.xinhuanet.com/politics/2010-02/28/content_13069032.htm.
2. Abbot, Martha G. 1989. Understanding One Another’s Englishes. Kennedy: 138-144.
3. Albanese, M. A., & Mitchell, S. 1993. Problem-based learning: A review of literature on its outcomes and implementation issues. Academic Medicine, 68 (1): 52-81.
4. Alessi, S. N., & Trollip, S.R. 2001. Multimedia for learning: methods and development. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
5. Allen, D. E., Duch, B. J., & Groh, S. E. 1996. The power of problem-based learning in teaching introductory science courses.”In L. Wilkerson & W. H. Gijselaers (Eds.), Bringing problem-based learning to higher education: Theory and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass: 43-52.
6. American Philosophical Association. 1990. Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. The Delphi Report. Committee on Pre-College Philosophy. ERIC Doc. No. ED 315423.
7. Anwarul Azim Majumder, Urban D’Souza, Sayeeda Rahman. 2004. Trends in medical education: Challenges and directions for need-based reforms of medical training in South-East Asia. Retrieved on August 15, 2010, from http://www.indianjmedsci.org/article.asp?issn=0019-5359;year=2004;volume=58;issue=9;spage=369;epage=380;aulast=Majumder#top. Indian Journal of medical Sciences, 58, 9: 369-380.
8. Astin, A. W., Banta, T. W., Cross, K. P., El-Khawas, E., Ewell, P. T., Hutchings, P., Marchese, T. J., McMClenney, K. M., Mentkowshi, M., Miller, M. A., Moran, E. T., Wright B. D. 1996. AAHE Assessment Forum, July 25. Retrieved on June 1, 2010, fromhttp://www.academicprograms.calpoly.edu/pdfs/assess/nine_principles_good_practice.pdf.
9. Banta, T. W., Black, K. E., & Kline, K. A. 2000. PBL 2000 plenary address offers evidence for and against problem based learning, PBL Insight to solve, to learn, together. A newsletter for undergraduate Problem Based Learning from Stamford, 3(3).
10. Barron, B. J. S., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J. Moore, A., Zech, L. & Bransford, J. D. 1998. Doing with understanding—lessons from research on problem- and project-based learning. Journal of the Learning Science, 7(3-4):271-311.
11. Barrows, H. S. 1984. A Specific, Problem-based, Self-directed Learning Method Designed to Teach Medical Problem-solving Skills, Self-learning Skills and EnhanceKnowledge Retention and Recall. In Tutorials in Problem-based Learning. H. G. Schmidt and M. L. De Volder (Ed.). Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum.
12. Barrows, H. S. 1986. A taxonomy of problem-base learning methods. Medical Education, 20: 481-486.
13. Barrows, H. S. 1992. The Tutorial Process. Springfield: Southern Illinois University.
14. Barrows, H. S. & Mayers, A. C. 1993. Problem-Based Learning in Secondary Schools. Springfield, IL: Problem-Based Learning Institute, Lanphier High School and Southern Illinois University Medical School. Unpublished paper.
15. Barrows, Howard S., Tamblyn, Robyn M. 1980. Problem-Based Learning: An Approach to Medical Education. New York: Springer Publishing Company.
16. Barrows, H. S., Tamblyn, R. M. 1985. How to design a problem-based curriculum for the pre-clinical years. New York: Springer Publishing Company.
17. Beacham, Cindy V. & Shambaugh, Neal. 2007. Advocacy as a Problem-Based Learning (PBL) Teaching Strategy. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 2007, Volume 19, Number 3, pp315-324. Retrieved on June 2, 2010, from http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/pdf/IJTLHE240.pdf.
18. Berkson, L. 1993. Problem-based learning: have the expectations been met? Academic Medicine, vol. 68, No. 10: S79-S88.
19. Bligh, J. 1995. Problem based, small group learning. British Medical Journal, 311: 342-343.
20. Bloom, B., Englehart, M. Furst, E., Hill, W., & Krathwohl, D. 1956. Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York, Toronto: Longmans, Green.
21. Blumberg, P., & Michael, J. 1992. Development of self-directed learning behaviors in a partially teacher-directed problem-based learning curriculum. Taylor & Francis: Teaching and Learning in Medicine (Teach Learn Med), 4: 3-8.
22. Bond, Linda. A. 1996. Norm- and criterion-referenced testing. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 5(2). Retrieved on June 1, 2010, from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=5&n=2.
23. Boston, C. 2002. The concept of formative assessment. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 8(9). Retrieved on May 31, 2010, from http://PAREonline. net/getvn.asp?v=8&n=9.
24. Boud, David. 1985. Problem-based Learning in Education for the Professions. HERDSA.
25. Boud, David, Feletti, Grahame. 1991. Introduction. In D. Boud, & G. Feletti (Ed.), thechallenge of problem-based learning. London: Kogan Page, 13-20.
26. Boud, David, Feletti, Grahame. 1997. The Challenge of Problem-based Learning (2nd Ed.). New York: St. Martin’s Press.
27. Bridges, E. M., Hallinger, P. 1995. Implementing problem-based learning in leadership development. Eugene: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management.
28. Bridges, E., Hallinger, P. 1992. Problem Based Learning For Administrators. Clearinghouse on Educational Management, University of Oregon.
29. Brown, Collins and Duguid. 1989. Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning, Educational Researcher, 18: 32-42.
30. Brown, H. D. 2002. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching, Third Edition. Pearson Education North Asia Limited. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
31. Candlin, Christopher N & Hall, David R. 2005. Applied Linguistics in Action Series [A]. Rost, Michael. Teaching and Researching: Listening [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press: 119-120.
32. Candlin, Christopher N & Hall, David R. 2005. Applied Linguistics in Action Series [A]. Hughes, Rebecca. Teaching and Researching: Speaking [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press: 87-88.
33. Candlin, Christopher N & Hall, David R. 2005. Applied Linguistics in Action Series [A]. Grabe, William and Stoller, Fredricka L. Teaching and Researching: Reading [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press: 83.
34. Candlin, Christopher N & Hall, David R. 2005. Applied Linguistics in Action Series [A]. Hatim, Basil. Teaching and Researching: Translation [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press: 117.
35. Caprio, M. W. 1994. Easing into constructivism: Connecting meaningful learning with student experience. Arlington, VA.: National Science Teachers: Journal of College Science Teaching, 23(4): 210-212.
36. Chen Yukai, Yang Kunyuan. 2006. Using Problem-based Learning Teaching Model to Promote the Self-directed Science Learning Readiness and Science Learning Motivation of Eight-grade Students. Hong Kong: APERA Conference.
37. Clark, Beth, Griffin, Jessie, and Turner, Dana. 2007. Social Constructivism, Sorting Out Variations on the Terms“Constructionism and Constructivism”(Table). Retrieved on July 30, 2010,fromhttp://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Social_Constructivism#General_Perspectives_of_Social_Constructivism_on_Learning.Tomorrow’s Technologies.
39. Cognition & Technology Group at Vanderbilt. 1992. The Jasper experiment: An exploration of issues in learning and instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40 (1), 65-80.
40. Cohen, E. G. 1994. Designing groupwork: Strategies for heterogeneous classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.
41. Coles, C. R. 1985. Differences between conventional and problem-based curricula in their students approaches to studying, Medical Education, vol. 19: 308-309.
42. Colley, Kabba. 2008. Project-Based Science Instruction: A PRIMER: The Science Teacher.
43. Collins, A. S., Brown, J.S. & Newman, S.E. 1989. Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing and mathematics. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 453-494.
44. Comber, Geoffrey, Zeiderman, Howard, Maistrellis, Nicholas. 2002. Touchstones Volume C—Teachers Guide. Maryland: Touchstones Discussion Project.
45. Cromwell, L. S.1992. Assessing critical thinking. In C. A. Barnes (Ed.), Critical Thinking: Educational Imperative. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass Publishers. (77): 37-50.
46. Dart, Jon. 2009. Learning and Teaching Guides: Problem Based Learning in Sport, Leisure and Social Sciences. The Higher Education Academy Network for Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism.
47. Dart, Jon, Trinity, Leeds & All Saints. 2009. Learning and Teaching Guide: Problem Based Learning in Sport, Leisure and Social Sciences. The Higher Education Academy Network for Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism, Retrieved on June 4, 2010, from http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/hlst/documents/resources/ssg_pbl_casestudies.pdf.
48. Derry, S. J. 1999. A Fish called peer learning: Searching for common themes. In A. M. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.).
49. Dewey, J. 1916. Democracy and Education. New York: The Macmillan Company.
50. Dewey, J. 1933. How We Think. New York: Health.
51. Dochy, Filip, Segers, Mien, Bossche, Van den Piet, Gijbels, David. 2003. Effects of PBL: a meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction. Elsevier Science Ltd., 13: 533–568.
52. Dolmans, D. H. J. M., & Schmidt, H.G. 1994. What drives the student in problem-based Learning?. Medical Education, 28: 372-380.
53. Driscoll, M. P. 1993. Psychology of learning for instruction. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
54. Duch, Barbara J, Groh, Susan E., Allen, Deborah E. 2001. The Power of Problem-Based Learning: A Practical“How To”for Teaching Undergraduate Courses in Any Discipline. Sterling, Virginia: Stylus Publishing, LLC.
55. Duffy, T. M. 1994. Corporate and Community Education: Achieving success in the information society. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University. Unpublished paper.
56. Eagle, C. E. 1992. Problem-based learning. Mark Allen Group: British Journal of Hospital Medicine (Br J Hosp Med), 48: 325-329.
57. Engel, C. E. 1991. Not Just a Method but a Way of Learning. The challenge of problem based learning. In D. Boud & G. P.Felletti, (Ed.). London: Kogan-Page, 1991: 22-33.
58. Ellis, R. 1985. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
59. Facione, Peter. A. 2010. Critical Thinking: What It Is and Why It Counts. Retrieved on April 16, 2010, from http://www.insightassessment.com/pdf_files/what&why2007.pdf.
60. Facione, N. C., Facione, P. A. 1997. Critical Thinking Assessment in Nursing Education Programs: An Aggregate Data Analysis. Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press. 1997: 92-93.
61. Facione, P., Giancarlo, C., Facione, N. & Gainen, J. 1995. The Disposition Toward Critical Thinking. Journal of General Education, 44, (1): 1-25.
62. Facione, N. C., Facione, P. A., Giancarlo, C.A. F. 2001. California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory: Inventory Manual. Millbrae, CA: Insight Assessment.
63. Facione, N.C., Facione, P. A., Sanchez, C. A. 1994. Critical Thinking disposition as a measure of competent clinical judgment: the development of the California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory. Nursing Education, 33(8): 345-350.
64. Filip, Dochy, Mien, Segers, Bossche Van den Piet, Gijbels, David. 2003. Effects of PBL: a meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction. Elsevier Science Ltd., 13: 533–568.
65. Finkle, S.L., & Torp, L.L. 1995. Introductory Documents. Illinois Math and Science Academy.
66. Finucane, P. M., Johnson, S. M., & Prideaux, D. J. 1998. Problem-based learning: Its rationale and efficacy. Australasian Medical Publishing Company Proprietary Limited (AMPCo): The Medical Journal of Australia (Med J Aust.), 168: 445-448.
67. Fjuk, A., Bennedsen, J., Berge, O., & Caspersen, M. 2004. Learning object orientation through ICT-mediated apprenticeship. In Advanced Learning Technologies, 2004: Proceedings. IEEE International Conference: 380-384.
68. Gage, Nathan (Ed.). 1964. Handbook of Research on Teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally & Company.
69. Gallagher, S. A., Stepien, W. J. & Rosenthal, H. 1992. The effects of problem-based learning on problem solving, Gifted Child Quarterly, 36 (4): 195-200.
70. Galloway, Chad. 2007. Vygotsky’s Constructivism. Retrieved on July 30, 2010, from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Vygotsky’s_constructivism.
71. Gijselaers, W. 1995. Perspectives on problem-based learning. In Gijselaers, W., Tempelaar, D., Keizer, P., Blommaert, J., Bernard, E & Kapser, H (Ed.). Educational Innovation in Economics and Business Administration: The Case of Problem-Based Learning: 39-52.
72. Glaser, R. 1991. The maturing of the relationship between the science of learning and cognition and educational practice. Learning and Instruction, 99 (1): 129-144.
73. Grabe, W. 1998. English, Information Access, and Technology Transfer: A Rationale for English as an International Language [J]. World Englishes, 7(1): 63-72.
74. Gredler, Margaret, and Shields, Carol. 2004. Does No One read Vygotsky’s Words? Commentary on Glassman. Educational Researcher 33 (2): 22.
75. Greenspan, Alan. 2000. The Evolving Demand for Skills. Remarks at the US Department of Labor National Skills Summit, Aprill 11 2000. In Learning for the 21st Century—A Report and Mile Guide for 21st Century Skills.
76. Hannafin, M. J., & Hooper, S. R. 1993. Learning Principles. In M. Fleming & W. Levie (Ed.), Instructional message design: principles from behavioral and cognitive sciences (2nd Ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
77. He, An E. 2005. Learning and Teaching English in the People’s Republic of China. Teaching English To The World: History, Curriculum, and Practice (Edited by George Braine). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
78. Hmelo-Silver, Cindy E., and Barrows, Howard S. 2006. Goals and Strategies of a Problem-based Learning Facilitator. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, Vol. 1 (1): 21-39.
79. Hmelo, C. E. & Ferrari, M. 1997. The problem-based leading tutorial—cultivating higher order thinking skills. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20(4): 401-422.
80. Honebein, P., Duffy, T.M., & Fishman, B. 1993. Constructivism and the design of learning environments: Context and authentic activities for learning. In Thomas M. Duffy, Joost Lowyck, and David Jonassen (Ed.), Designing environments for constructivist learning. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
81. Institute of Curriculum Studies. 2001. A Collection of twentieth century curriculumsand syllabi for secondary and primary schools in China. Beijing: People’s Education Press.
82. James, M. A. 2006. Teaching for transfer in ELT. ELT Journal. 60(2):151-159.
83. Kansas State Board of Education. 2000. Curricular Standards for Foreign Language. Retrieved on June 26, 2010, from http://www.ksde.org/portals/0/Standards%20Documents/Other/flstd.pdf.
84. Kellough, R. D., Kellough, N. G., Kim, E.C. 1999. Secondary school teaching: A guide to methods and resources: planning for competence (3rd Ed.). New Jersey: Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hill.
85. Laffey, J., T. Tupper, D. Musser, J. Wedman. 1998. A computer-mediated support system for project-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 46(1): 73-86.
86. Larsson, Jon. 2001. Problem-Based Learning: A possible approach to language education? Retrieved on July 4, 2010, from http://www.nada.kth.se/~jla/docs/PBL.pdf.
87. Lederer, Jeffrey M. 2007. Disposition Toward Critical Thinking Among Occupational Therapy Students. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy. 61 (5): 519-526.
88. LeJeune, N. F. 2002. Problem-based learning instruction versus traditional instruction on self-directed learning, motivation, and grades of undergraduate computer science students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado, Denver.
89. Lieux, E. M. 1996. A comparative study of learning in lectures versus problem-based format. About Teaching, 50: 25-27.
90. Machanick, Philip. 2007. A Social Construction Approach to Computer Science Education. Routledge: Computer Science Education, 17(1): 1-20.
91. Margetson, D. 1991. Why is problem-based learning a challenge? In D. Boud, & G. Feletti (Ed.), The challenge of problem-based learning. London: Kogan-Page.
92. Marzano, R.1998. What are the General Skills of Thinking and Reasoning and How Do You Teach Them? The Clearing House, 71 (5): 268-73.
93. McMahon, M. 1997. Social Constructivism and the World Wide Web---A Paradigm for Learning. Paper presented at the ASCILITE conference. Perth, Australia.
94. Mentis, M., Ryba, K. and Annan, J. 2001. Creating authentic on-line communities of professional practice. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education Conference, Fremantle.
95. Merrill, M. D. 1991. Constructivism and instructional design. Educational Technology, 45-53.
96. Merrill, M. D. 2002. A Pebble-in-the-pond Model for Instructional Design,Performance Improvement 41 (7). Retrieved on July 24, 2010, from http://www.csap.bham.ac.uk/resources/project_reports/ShowOverview.asp?id=4.
97. Mezirow J. 1990. Fostering Critical Reflection in Adulthood. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
98. Milter, R. G. & Stinson, J. E. 1994. Educating leaders for the new competitive environment. In G. Gijselaers, S. Tempelaar & S. Keizer S. (Eds.). Educational innovation in economics and business administration: The case of probelm-based learning. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
99. National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project. 1999. Standards for Foreign Language Learning: Preparing for the 21st Century. New York: Yonkers.
100.Newby, T. J., Stepich, D. A., Lehman, J. D., & Russell, J. D. 1996. Instructional technology for teaching and learning: Designing instruction, integrating computers, and using media. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.
101.Newman, Mark. 2004. A pilot systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of Problem Based Learning—On behalf of the Campbell Collaboration Systematic Review Group on the effectiveness of Problem Based Learning. London: Middlesex University.
102.Norman, G. R., & Schmidt, A. G. 1992. The psychological basis of problem-based learning: A review of the evidence. Academic Medicine, 67: 557-565.
103.Nunan, D. 1989. Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
104.O’neill P. A. 2000. The role of basic sciences in a problem-based learning clinical curriculum. Blackwell Publishing Ltd: Medical Education, 34(8): 608-613.
105.Pearson Education Limited. 2004. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. Hong Kong: Pearson Education Asia Limited, Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
106.Peng Meici, Wang Guocheng, Chen Jile, et al. 2004. Validity and Reliability of the Chinese Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory. Chinese Journal of Nursing, 2004: 9.
107.Peterson, Michael. 1997. Skills to enhance problem-based learning. Med Educ Online [serial online]. Retrieved on August 5, 2010, from http://www.utmb.edu/meo/. 1997: 2, 3.
108.Peterson, Tim O. 2004. So You’re Thinking of Trying Problem Based Learning?: Three Critical Success Factors for Implementation. Journal of Management Education, Vol. 28, 5: 630-647.
109.Piaget, J. 1985. The Equilibration of Cognitive Structures: The Central Problem ofIntellectual Development. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
110.Piaget, Jean. 1968. Genetic Epistemology. Columbia University Press.
111.Piaget, Jean. 2001. Retrieved on November 22, 2009, from http://education.indiana.edu/~cep/courses/p540/piagsc.html.
112.Preston, Vogel, Robert. 2006. Education. New York: McGraw-Hill, 187-190.
113.Prpic, K., & Hadgraft, R. 2002. Problem solving objectives of problem-based learning. Retrieved on June 1, 2010, from http://www. dlsweb.rmit.edu.acc/eng/beng0001/LEARNING/strategy/pblobjectives.html.
114.Quiocho, Alice L., Ulanoff, Sharon H. 2009. Differentiated Literacy Instruction for English Language Learners. Pearson Education, Inc.
115.Richardson, Virginia (Ed.). 1997. Constructivist Teacher Education—Building A World of New Understandings. London: Routledge Falmer.
116.Rideout, E. & Carpio, B. 2001. The problem based learning model of nursing education. In Rideout E. (Ed.). Transforming Nursing Education through problem-based learning. Sudbury, Jones & Bartlett: 21-45.
117.Salomon, G., and Perkins, D. N. 1989. Rocky roads to transfer: Rethinking mechanisms of a neglected phenomenon. Educational Psychology, 24: 113-142.
118.Savin-Baden, M. 2000. Problem-based learning in higher education: untold stories. Buckingham, SRHE/Open University Press.
119.Savin-Baden, Maggi and Wilkie, Kay. 2006. Problem-based Learning Online. Berkshire: Open University Press.
120.Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M.1995. Problem-based learning: An Instructional model and its constructivist framework. Educational Technology, 35: 31-37.
121.Savery, John R. 2006. Overview of Problem-based Learning: Definitions and Distinctions. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning. vol. 1 (1): 9-20.
122.Savery, John R. & Duffy, Thomas M. 1996. Problem Based Learning: An Instructional Model and Its Constructivist Framework. In Wilson, Brent. G. (Ed.). 1996. Constructivist Learning Environments: Case studies in instructional design. New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications. 2001. Problem Based Learning: An Instructional model and its constructivist framework. CRLT Technical Report, 16-01. Bloomington: Indianan University.
123.Schifter, D. & Simon, M. A. 1992. Assessing teachers’development of a constructivist view of learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 8: 187-197.
124.Schmidt, H. G. 1993. Foundations of problem based learning; some explanatory notes.Medical Education, vol. 27, No. 422: 432.
125.Schmidt, H. G. 1998. Problem-based learning—Does it prepare medical students to become better doctors? The Medical Journal of Australia, 168: 429-430.
126.Schmidt, H. G. 1983. Problem-based learning: rationale and description. Medical Education, vol. 17: 11-16.
127.Schoenfeld, A. H. 1987. What’s all the fuss about metacognition? In A. H. Schoenfeld (Ed.) Cognitive Science and Mathematics Education. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
128.Schon, D. 1987. Educating the reflective practitioner. Oxford: Jossey Bass.
129.Seifer, Sarena D., 1998. Recent and Emerging Trends in Undergraduate Medical Education—Curricular Responses to a Rapidly Changing Health Care System. West Med, 168: 400-411.
130.Shin, K.R. 1998. Critical thinking ability and clinical decision making skills among senior nursing students in associate and baccalaureate programs in Korea. J Advan Nurs. 27(2):414-418.
131.Simon, P. R. J. 1991. Constructive learning: The role of the learner. In T. M. Duffy, J. Lowyck & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.). Designing environments for constructivist learning. NATO-ASI series. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
132.Smits, P., Verbeek, J., & De Buisonje, C. 2002. Problem based learning in continuing medical education: a review of controlled evaluation studies. British Medical Journal, vol. 324 (2002a): 153-156.
133.Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. 1992. Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawerence Erlbaum Associates, 57-76.
134.Springer, C. W., & Borthick, A. F. 2007. Improving Performance in Accounting: Evidence for Insisting on Cognitive Conflict Tasks. Issues In Accounting Education, 22(1): 1-19.
135.Stevenson, J. A. 1928. The project method of teaching. New York: Macmillan.
136.Strobel, Johannes and Barneveld, Angela van. 2009. When is PBL More Effective? A Meta-synthesis of Meta-analyses: Comparing PBL to Conventional Classrooms. Retrieved on July 24, 2010, from http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1046&context=ijpbl. volume 3, No. 1.
137.Swearingen, Richard. 2002. A Primer : Diagnostic, Formative and Summative Assessment. Retrieved on June 1, 2010, from http://slackernet.org/assessment.htm.
138.The National College English Testing Committee. 2006. The Testing Syllabus for College English Test-Band 6(2006 Revised Edition). Retrieved on May 25, 2010, from http://www.en.cet.edu.cn/dg6displaynews.asp?id=302.
139.The Campbell Collaboration Systematic Review Group on the Effectiveness of Problem-based Learning. 2003. A pilot systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of Problem Based Learning. Newcastle upon Tyne (UK): University of Newcastle upon Tyne.
140.The University of Hong Kong, Award Presentation Ceremony For Excellence In Teaching and Research 2008. Feb. 2009. A Message from the Vice-Chancellor. Hong Kong: The University of Hong Kong. Retrieved on October 18, 2010, from http://www.hku.hk/award.
141.Tiwari, Agnes, Chan, S., Sullivan, P. L., Dixon, A. S., Tang, C. 1999. Enhancing Students’Critical Thinking through Problem-Based Learning. In J. Marsh (Ed.) Implementing Problem Based Learning Project: Proceedings of the First Asia Pacific Conference on Problem Based Learning: 75-86. Hong Kong: The University Grants Committee of Hong Kong, Teaching Development Project.
142.Tiwari, Agnes, Lai, Patrick, So, Mike & Yuen, Kwan. 2006. A comparison of the effects of problem-based learning and lecturing on the development of students’critical thinking. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Medical Education, 40: 547-554.
143.Torp, Linda and Sage, Sara. 1998. Problems as Possibilities: Problem-Based Learning for K-12 Education. USA: Association for Supervision Curriculum Development.
144.Uden, Lorna and Beaumont, Chris. 2006. Technology and Problem-Based Learning. Hershey·London·Melbourne·Singapore: Information Science Publishing.
145.University of Delaware, Office of Educational Assessment. 2010. Critical Thinking Value Rubric. Retrieved on March 18, 2010, from http://assessment.udel.edu/sites/assessment.udel.edu/files/rubrics/CriticalThinking.pdf
146.University of Delaware, Office of Educational Assessment. 2010. Foundations and Skills for Lifelong Learning Value Rubric. Retrieved on March 18, 2010, from http://assessment.udel.edu/sites/assessment.udel.edu/files/rubrics/LifelongLearning.pdf.
147.University of Delaware, Office of Educational Assessment. 2010. Problem Solving Value Rubric. Retrieved on March 18, 2010, from http://assessment.udel.edu/sites/assessment.udel.edu/files/rubrics/ProblemSolving.pdf.
148.University of Delaware, Office of Educational Assessment. 2010. Teamwork Value Rubric. Retrieved on March 18, 2010, from http://assessment.udel.edu/sites/assessment.udel.edu/files/rubrics/Teamwork.pdf.
149.Van den Bossche, P., Gijbels, D., & Dochy, F. 2000. Does problem based learning educate problem solvers? A meta-analysis on the effects of problem based learning.VII EDINEB Conference, Newport Beach USA.
150.Vernon, D. T. A., & Blake, R. L. 1993. Does problem-based learning work? A meta-analysis of evaluative research. Academic Medicine, 68(1): 550- 563.
151.Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
152.Vygotsky, L. S. 1991. Pedagogical Psychology (2nd Ed.). Moscow: Pedagogika, 118.
153.Vygotsky, L. S. 2007. Social Development Theory. Retrieved on July 30, 2010, from http://www.learning-theories.com/vygotskys-social-learning-theory.html.
154.Walsh, Allyn. 2005. The Tutor in Problem based learning: A Novice’s Guide (Ed. By Annette F. Sciarra). Hamilton: McMaster University. Retrieved on August 14, 2010, from http://www.fhs.mcmaster.ca/facdev/documents/tutorPBL.pdf.
155.Walker, Allan, Bridges, Edwin, Chan, Benjamin. 1996. Wisdom gained, wisdom given: instituting PBL in a Chinese culture. Journal of Educational Administration. MCB University Press. Vol. 34 (5): 12-31.
156.Walton, H. J. & Matthews, M. B. 1989. Essentials of Problem Based Learning. Medical Education, 23: 542-558.
157.Ward, J. D., & Lee, C. L. 2002. A review of problem-based learning. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education, 20 (1).
158.White, W.F. & Hargrove, R. 1996. Are Those Preparing to Teach Prepared to Teach Critical Thinking? Journal of Instructional Psychology, 23: 117-20.
159.WHO. 1992. Towards the assessment of quality in medical education. Geneva: World Health Organization.
160.Wiggins, G. 1990. The case for authentic assessment. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 2 (2). Retrieved on June 1, 2010, from http://PAREonline. net/getvn.asp?v=2&n=2.
161.Wikipedia. 2010. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Problem-based learning. Retrieved on July 24, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem-based_learning.
162.Wikipedia. 2010. Jean Piaget. Retrieved on July 24, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Piaget#Theory.
163.Wikipedia. 2010. Project-based learning. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved onJuly 24, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project-based_learning.
164.Wikipedia. 2010. Constructivism. Retrieved on July 24, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_(learning_theory).
165.Wolf, F. 1993. Problem-based learning and Meta-analyis: can we see the forest through the trees? Academic Medicine, vol. 68, No. 7: 542-545.
166.Wong, Shelley. 2006. Dialogic Approaches to TESOL. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: 38.
167.Zeiderman, Howard. 2003. Mapping the Future—A Reader’s Guide to Group Discussion. Maryland: Touchstones Discussion Project.
168.韩其顺,陆慈,董亚芬. 1994.执行大学英语教学大纲的回顾与思考[J].北京:教学与教材研究(6).
169.何克抗. 1997.建构主义——革新传统教学理论基础[J].电化教育研究. (4): 25-27.
170.全国大学英语四、六级考试委员会. 2000.大学英语四、六级考试口语考试实考试卷汇编.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
171.陈坚林. 2008.要求更完善,方向更明晰——对07版《大学英语课程教学要求》的新解读[J].上海:外语电化教学(119期).
172.张尧学. 2002.加强实用性英语教学,提高大学生英语综合能力[J].北京:中国高等教育.
173.黄秀云. 2008.中文版批判性思维特质测量表于台湾临床护理人员之测试[D].台湾:“国立”成功大学.
174.黄亚玲,郑孝清,金润铭,兰黎,周东风. 2005. PBL教学模式探索[J].武汉:医学与社会,18, (6): 56-57.
175.教育部高等教育司. 2007.大学英语课程教学要求[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
176.教育部高等教育司. 2004.大学英语课程教学要求(试行) [M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
177.教育部. 2003.普通高中英语课程标准(实验) [M].北京:人民教育出版社.
178.罗清旭,杨鑫辉. 2001.《加利福尼亚批判性思维倾向问卷》中文版的初步修订[J].北京:心理发展与教育.
179.罗清旭,杨鑫辉. 2002.加利福尼亚批判性思维技能测验[J].上海:心理科学, 25 (6): 740-741.
180.吴启迪. 2005.教育部副部长吴启迪同志在大学英语四、六级考试改革新闻发布会上的讲话[J].上海:外语界,2005年第2期(总第106期).
181.杨惠中,Weir. C. 1998.大学英语四、六级考试效度研究[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
182.国家中长期教育改革和发展规划纲要领导小组办公室. 2010. 2. 28.国家中长期教育改革和发展规划纲要(2010-2020)(公开征求意见稿).北京:新华社. Retrieved on May, 26, 2010, from http://news.xinhuanet.com/politics/2010-02/28/content_13069032.htm.