145 165 2008 6

A COLLABORATIVE LEARNING MODEL ON

MEDICAL ENGLISH CURRICULUM FOR
ENGLISH TEACHERS, TEACHING ASSISTANTS
AND STUDENTS
Yu-Min Shen
Lecturer, Center of General Education, China Medical University

Abstract
This study is aimed at helping medical students deal with their problems in
medical English learning through teaching assistant system and tries to find answers
to the following questions: (1) Will teaching assistant system do any help to students
in the Medical English Program? (2) Will teaching assistants backgrounds influence
the results of Medical English instruction? (3)Which level of students will benefit
most from teaching assistant system? The subjects were students who attended
Medical English. The results showed that in a collaborative learning environment,
most students were willing to take the challenge to face their learning difficulties.
They were encouraged to read the English original texts gradually and naturally.
Student learning could be enhanced with the help of either the medical TA or the
English TA. Of the three levels, the basic students benefited the most from teaching
assistant system, and the advanced students the least. But it seemed that almost each
member benefited from this collaborative environment, including students, the TAs
and the English teacher.
Key words: Collaborative Learning Environment (CLE), teaching assistant system,
medical English, English original texts, learning difficulties
Requests for reprints should be sent to Yu-Min Shen, The Center for General
Education, China Medical University, 91 Hsueh-Shih Road, Taichung 404, Taiwan.
E-mail: ymshen@mail.cmu.edu.tw

146

INTRODUCTION
The birth, oldness, illness and death of a person all have to do with medicine. So,
the quality of the medical staff directly affects the health of the public. However, the
quality of the medical staff depends on medical education and training. Therefore,
the way the programs are designed in medical schools plays an important role in the
health care system (Shen, 1996). In recent years, language teaching is highly valued
in Taiwan. Many universities use English textbooks in their professional programs
because the medical information in the world is mainly published in English.
Therefore, the medical English reading ability of medical students is closely related
to the quality of the entire health care system.
More and more medical students understand the importance of learning skills in
medical English (Shen, 1995, 1996 & 2005). In 2005, one Medical English Program
was established for freshmen at China Medical University. Students eagerness to
take the course indicated that they had sensed the importance of the ability to read
medical English articles.
However, after teaching, the teacher found that students were commonly
confronted with difficulties when facing the medical texts totally written in English.
Their learning experiences were usually confined to the Chinese translation (Shen,
1996 & 2003) and instructors handouts. And the collaborative learning pattern
between peer students focused mainly on collaborative hypertext (), notes
which were co-written by students themselves under the base to guess what the exam
questions would be (Shen, 2003).
Besides, students rarely read the original texts. So, the embarrassing situation
that students could not understand the exam questions often happened. The problems
were not only that the knowledge students got was vague fragments, but also that
students became negative learners because of lacking sense of achievement (Shen,
2003). Factors expected to make them skip the real contents were: (1) lack of
medical knowledge; (2) lack of effective English learning strategies; (3) misleading

147

of wrong peer cooperation; (4) lack of chances to independently interpret new texts.
This meant that they did need the help of English teachers (Shen, 2003 & 2005).
In order to learn to read medical textbooks, students need the help of English
teachers. Nevertheless, Shen (2006) addressed issues in the single role of English
teachers in the Medical English Program. Medical English should not be defined as a
language-based program or a medicine-oriented program, but a program in between.
Without a VET background (Vocational Education and Training), English teachers
can only provide students with basic medical information. Therefore, this program
should be supplemented by medical professionals. Neither medical professionals nor
English teachers should be excluded in this program.
To most freshmen, medicine is quite an unfamiliar field. Besides, the learning
materials in the Medical English Program are in English; this will increase their
learning difficulties. More than these, big ability differences can usually be found
among students of different majors in medical schools (Shen, 2002 & 2005). It is
really hard to fulfill each students needs to learn in the limited class hours, not to
mention in a field between medical education and English education. But, what if
students still can not understand the learning materials or have some doubts? Is there
any way or anyone who can offer help after class?
Values of Teaching Assistants
Proper teaching assistants seem to be one key to the above questions if they can
offer help after class to solve each students problems. Good teaching assistants
know the course much better than students. They have gone through the process of
learning, so they realize the problems students will face. To meet the need for good
teaching assistants, many universities, like Duke University and University of
Nebraska-Lincoln, have organized teaching assistant programs to educate graduate
students to be teaching assistants (Luo, Grady & Bellows, 2001). Davis and Grover
from Emporia State University and Burns from Morningside College (2004) working
on Training and Evaluating Masters-Level Graduate Teaching Assistants also

148

approved that the teaching assistant system is a worth-doing.

Teaching assistant system is used in many fields. Roberts, Lilly and Rollins
(1995) described how teaching assistants provide individual attention in introductory
computer science courses. Both students and teaching assistants were benefited from
the effective and collaborative learning environment. In the study Achievement
through Small-Group Discussion Sessions in Large General Chemistry Lecture
Classes with the Aids of Undergraduate Peer Teaching Assistants (Lyon, 2002), we
may also find the growing of students through the result of the exam.
Samson and Millet (2003) documented the process for having teaching
assistants help freshmen in English Composition and Public Speaking courses and
how the faculty and teaching assistants cooperated to create a student centered
learning environment and achieved high success. A similar study is Is it Better for
PE/Kinesiology Graduate Assistants to Teach University Activity Classes, or for
Athletic Coaches to Teach these Classes? (Soukup, et al, 2005). In the study, PE
graduate assistants were younger and easier for students to communicate and get
along with while athletic coaches had more experience in planning, preparing and
managing class.
Needs for EFL Empirical Studies
However, the study on teaching assistants for medical English programs was
barely seen. It is not that this kind of study has no importance but was ignored since
it is a small field. The course, Medical English, has its half-blooded destiny. Its a
field between medical education and English education and it is only seen in medical
school. It seems both medical majors and English majors are qualified and not
qualified for the job.
Collaborative Learning Pattern (CLP) is commonly used as a shorthand to
effectively communicate collaborative activities, and provide building blocks for
more complex situations (Asensio-Prez, et al, 2004). Therefore, this study is aimed
at helping medical students deal with the problems in medical English learning in an

149

environment where they not only can share the fun of collaborative learning between
the teacher, teaching assistants and peer students to achieve the greatest learning
effect (Hirsch & supple, 1996; Watkins & Biggs, 1996; Wei, 1996; Jacobs, 1997;
Woytak, 1998; Short, 1999; Shen, 2003), but also can get familiar with new medical
information and learn the reading skills in medical texts.
Furthermore, according to the above problems and related literature review, this
study attempts to find answers to the following questions:
1. Will teaching assistant system do any help to students in the Medical English
Program?
2. Will teaching assistants backgrounds influence the results of Medical English
instruction? Which one is more beneficial for medical English learning, the
English teaching assistant or the medical teaching assistant?
3. Which level of students will benefit most from teaching assistant system, low,
intermediate or high students?

METHODS
A combined qualitative and quantitative approach was used in this study,
including not only teaching assistants participation and observation in student
learning, but the data analysis of a questionnaire and student performance.
Subjects
1. Students
The subjects were students who attended the program Medical English in the
second semester of 2006 school year at China Medical University. Four classes
participated in this study. All students were offered the same instruction in class in
the whole semester; and in the duration, two classes were assisted by the medical TA
(with a total of 94 students) and the other two by the English TA (with a total of 107
students) after class.

150

2. Teaching Assistants
Two teaching assistants participated in this research: one graduate student in
English at Chung Cheng University and one medical professional at China Medical
University Hospital. Each teaching assistant was asked to come to the campus twice
a week. First time, he or she discussed with the English teacher about the content of
learning materials and the strategies to help students. Their discussion focused on
how to help students: (1) understand the medical English text; (2) prepare for a group
PowerPoint presentation; (3) search for medical information on the Internet; (4)
produce a written paper. When each teaching assistant came to the campus on the
second time, he or she would put the discussion into practice.
Sampling Procedure
To meet the needs of this research, after the semester, sampling was conducted
according to student performance on the midterm exam. In the two classes with the
medical TA, the bottom one-third of all 94 students was defined as the basic group,
the middle one-third as the intermediate group, and the top one-third as the advanced
group. But only the data from 20 students in each group were used for data analysis
in consideration of equal differences in midterm average between the three groups.
The same sampling procedures were performed on the other two classes with the
English TA. (Please refer to Table 1: Sampling Methods.)
Table 1. Sampling Methods
with the medical TA
Class A

Class B

Class C

Class D

44

50

57

50

Original number
Number of

with the English TA

basic

intermediate advanced

basic

intermediate

advanced

subjects

20

20

20

20

20

20

Midterm average

47

67

87

47

67

87

151

Instruments
1. Teaching Materials
The teaching material Medicine Today (Greenhalgh, 1993) for this project has
eighteen units. Each unit has a theme related to medicine. (Please refer to Appendix
A: Medical English Course Outline.) Each class in this experiment was separated
into nine groups. Each group was assigned the oral presentations of two units. On the
first round, all groups were evaluated as basic practice. On the second round, each
group was evaluated according to their progress. Two weeks before the presentation,
each group was arranged to discuss with one teaching assistant about the content and
format of the presentation, as well as the way to search for medical information on
the Internet. The next week, each group had to hand in the PowerPoint presentation
content to the teaching assistant as part of the evaluation.
Medical students commonly have the difficulties reading the new medical texts
written in English. So, the way of grouping here was actually more like a study
group for the whole class. Each group was responsible for reading part of the new
original text, hoping that students expression could be developed through group
presentations, and that all students could share their learning experience in the
cooperative atmosphere to complete the whole text. The main objective of this study
was to help students read the medical English text which was unfamiliar to them in a
lower pressure environment, getting them rid of the traditional way of learning which
focused on teachers handouts and shared segmental notes between students. But it
needs to be mentioned that grouping in the study group and group presentations was
only for class activities, nothing to do with the data analysis of this study.
2. Student Performance
All students were mainly graded on their performance on the midterm and final
exams and the two oral presentations. Nonetheless, each teaching assistants
evaluation accounted for 30% of the total score. The discussion meeting between
teaching assistants and the student groups was arranged after class. And criteria for

152

teaching assistants evaluation included each students attendance, participation and

expression, as well as the results of the assignments.
3. Questionnaire
At the end of the semester, a questionnaire survey was conducted to realize each
students satisfaction with the program, the English teacher, his/her TA and the
student himself/herself. In addition, each student was asked how many hours he/she
spent preparing for the midterm and final exams. These questions would be used to
understand how deeply each student got involved in learning.
Data Analysis
The data analysis was divided into 3 steps. First, a one-way ANOVA was used
to test the group differences in satisfaction with the program, the English teacher, the
TAs and students themselves. Besides, ranking was done to determine which group
had the highest satisfaction. Second, student progress between the midterm and final
exams was analyzed by one-way ANOVA to realize which group benefited most
from teaching assistant system, the basic, intermediate or advanced group. Third,
t-tests were performed to detect how the teaching assistants backgrounds influenced
student learning. Which one would be more beneficial for medical English learning,
the English teaching assistant or the medical teaching assistant?

RESULTS
In the following two tables, we can see students positive attitudes toward the
program. But the basic group in the medical TAs class is less satisfied with the
program than the intermediate and advanced groups. On the contrary, no group
differences can be found among the subjects with the English TA. In both tables, the
advanced students express the highest satisfaction with the program.

153

Table 2-A. Student Satisfaction with the Program (in the medical TAs class)
Mean

SD

Basic group

78.65

10.57

Intermediate group

84.30

6.18

(n=20/group)

Advanced group
group differences

F Ratio

Rank

Overall
Mean

3
4.57

0.01*

82.82

1
5.08
Basic-Intermediate (mean difference: -5.65 / p: 0.02*)
85.50

Basic-Advanced (mean difference: -6.85 / p: 0.006**)

(* p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.005)

Table 2-B. Student Satisfaction with the Program (in the English TAs class)
Mean

SD

Basic group

81.70

8.79

Intermediate group

82.60

5.66

Advanced group

85.05

9.96

(n=20/group)

F Ratio

Rank

Overall
Mean

3
0.86

0.43

83.12

Tables 3-A and 3-B indicate that students give very positive feedback to the
English teacher of this program. But similarly, there is a significant difference
between the basic and advanced groups in the medical TAs class. The satisfaction of
the basic group is lower than that of the advanced group. Besides, the advanced
groups in both tables most agree with the English teachers instruction.
Table 3-A. Student Satisfaction with the Teacher (in the medical TAs class)
Mean

SD

Basic group

83.40

8.74

Intermediate group

86.10

5.59

Advanced group

89.00

5.07

(n=20/group)

group difference

F Ratio

Rank

Overall
Mean

3
3.53

0.04*

2
1

Basic-Advanced (mean difference: -5.60 / p: 0.01*)

86.17

154

Table 3-B. Student Satisfaction with the Teacher (in the English TAs class)
Mean

SD

Basic group

85.80

7.70

Intermediate group

86.95

5.73

Advanced group

87.30

8.56

(n=20/group)

F Ratio

Rank

Overall
Mean

3
0.22

0.80

86.68

In Tables 4-A and 4-B, the data show similar results to the above. Both the
medical and English TAs assistance most satisfies the advanced groups. But each
group in the two tables seems to enjoy their TAs assistance. Its also interestingly
found that so far there are no group differences among the subjects with the English
TA. All the group differences appear among the subjects with the medical TA.
Furthermore, in each of the first three items of the questionnaire, the overall mean in
the English TAs class seems to be a little higher than that in the medical TAs class.
Table 4-A. Student Satisfaction with the Medical TA (in the medical TAs class)
Mean

SD

Basic group

79.15

8.66

Intermediate group

82.50

5.77

Advanced group

84.40

5.76

(n=20/group)

group difference

F Ratio

Rank

Overall
Mean

3
3.00

0.06

2
1

Basic-Advanced (mean difference: -5.25 / p: 0.02*)

82.02

155

Table 4-B. Student Satisfaction with the English TA (in the English TAs class)
Mean

SD

Basic group

82.10

6.11

Intermediate group

82.30

6.08

Advanced group

83.55

6.20

(n=20/group)

F Ratio

Rank

Overall
Mean

3
0.33

0.72

82.65

Students positive feedback is described in the above findings, but how do they
evaluate their own learning in this program? The ranking order of the groups in the
following tables is identical to the above; that is, the advanced students are most
satisfied with their own learning. But surprisingly, its found that all groups
satisfaction with themselves here is much lower than that with the program, the
English teacher and their TA.
Moreover, for the first time, not only the overall mean in the English TAs class
is lower than that in the medical TAs class, but also group differences are shown in
the English TAs class. Even the range of group differences is much larger than that
in the medical TAs class. The basic groups in both tables seem to express their
dissatisfaction with their own learning, especially the basic group in the English TAs
class.
Table 5-A. Student Satisfaction with Themselves (in the medical TAs class)
Mean

SD

Basic group

68.20

10.25

Intermediate group

74.95

14.17

Advanced group

77.50

9.70

(n=20/group)

group difference

F Ratio

Rank

Overall
Mean

3
3.47

0.04*

2
1

Basic-Advanced (mean difference: -9.30 / p: 0.01*)

73.55

156

Table 5-B. Student Satisfaction with Themselves (in the English TAs class)
Mean

SD

Basic group

61.15

9.76

Intermediate group

71.70

9.74

Advanced group

77.20

13.39

(n=20/group)

group differences

F Ratio

10.80

Rank

Overall
Mean

<0.001

***

70.02

Basic-Intermediate (mean difference: -10.55 / p: 0.004***)

Basic-Advanced (mean difference: -16.05 / p: <0.001***)

At first, the subjects in each TAs class were categorized into basic, intermediate
and advanced groups according to their performance on the midterm exam. For the
validity of results, the same level of the two different TAs classes had equal midterm
average. In order to understand which level of students would benefit the most from
the teaching assistant system, each groups progress between the midterm and final
exams was measured and compared.
In contrast to the above data, the ranking order of the groups here is changed. In
each of the following tables, the basic group makes the most progress and the
advanced group the least. Significant differences appear not only between the basic
and intermedicate groups but between the basic and advanced groups. In the English
TAs class, there is a significant difference between the intermediate and advanced
groups as well.
Table 6-A. Student Progress between Two Exams (in the medical TAs class)
(n=20/group)

Mean
(percentage)

SD

Basic group

54.12

42.80

Intermediate group

28.83

22.19

Advanced group

11.96

7.50

group differences

F Ratio

11.35

p
<0.001
***

Rank

Overall
Mean

1
2
3

Basic-Intermediate (mean difference: 25.29 / p: 0.006**)

Basic-Advanced (mean difference: 42.16 / p: <0.001***)

31.63

157

Table 6-B. Student Progress between Two Exams (in the English TAs class)
(n=20/group)

Mean
(percentage)

SD

Basic group

56.43

39.09

Intermediate group

31.96

22.19

Advanced group

12.17

8.41

F Ratio

14.11

p
<0.001
***

Rank

Overall
Mean

1
2

33.52

Basic-Intermediate (mean difference: 24.47 / p: 0.005**)

group differences

Basic-Advanced (mean difference: 44.26 / p: <0.001***)

Intermediate-Advanced (mean difference: 19.80 / p: 0.02*)

DISCUSSION
On the whole, most students in this program are quite satisfied with the program,
the English teacher and their TA. Therefore, their lower satisfaction with themselves
may be explained as that their learning awareness is triggered through the
engagement of the English teacher and their TA in the cooperative learning
environment (Hendry, et al, 2005). Thats why their progress (31.63%-33.52%)
between the midterm and final exams is really satisfactory. Moreover, it seems that
students with higher learning awareness make more progress (Hyatt & Beigy, 1999;
Morrison, Rha & Helfman, 2003; Friedland & Truscott, 2005).
In this research, we can not find any overall differences between the Medical
and English TAs classes. These classes share very similar results, in spite of the
lower level of student satisfaction with their own learning in the English TAs class.
This higher learning awareness leads them to spend more hours preparing for the
final exam. And probably thats the reason why they make more progress in the final
exam than those in the medical TAs class. (Please refer to Table 7: Overall
Differences between the Two TAs Classes.)

158

Table 7. Overall Differences between the Two TAs Classes

All subjects with
the Medical TA
(n=60)

All subjects with

the English TA
(n=60)

t-value

Satisfaction with the program

82.82

83.12

-0.20

0.84

Satisfaction with the teacher

86.17

86.68

-0.40

0.69

Satisfaction with their TA

82.02

82.65

-0.53

0.60

Satisfaction with themselves

73.55

70.02

1.56

0.12

Progress between two exams

31.63%

33.52%

-0.32

0.75

Hours spent for midterm exam

13.52

11.71

0.82

0.42

Hours spent for final exam

14.13

20.08

-1.56

0.12

difference
Mean

Medical English is a field between medical education and English education. To

most freshmen, medicine is quite a new field. Furthermore, learnig materials totally
in English increase the learning difficulties, especially for students with limited
English proficiency (LEP).
In general, the positive attitudes of the basic students can be interpreted to be
that the class activities and the help from the English teacher and their TA meet their
learning needs. Yet, they still have a much higher level of anxiety about their own
learning. Their lack of self-confidence may be one reason why their satisfaction with
the program, the English teacher and their TA is lower than that of the advanced
students.
But owing to the learning awareness effect, the learning anxiety of both the
basic and intermediate students seems to be turned into learning motivation. So they
make more progress than the advanced students. Moreover, the higher learning
awareness, the more progress students make. Thus, at the end, the basic students
make the most progress. (Please refer to Table 8: Significant Overall Group
Differences.)

159

Table 8. Significant Overall Group Differences

Mean

(LSD post hoc test)

mean
basic Intermediate Advanced difference
(n=40)
(n=40)
(n=40)

Satisfaction with the program

80.18

85.28

-5.10

0.005**

Satisfaction with the teacher

84.60

88.15

-3.55

0.03*

Satisfaction with their TA

80.63

83.98

-3.35

0.02*

-8.65

<0.001***

-12.68

<0.001***

25%

<0.001***

12%

43%

<0.001***

12%

18%

0.003***

Satisfaction with themselves

64.68
64.68
55%

Progress between two exams

73.33
77.35
30%

55%
30%

CONCLUSIONS
Anxiety impedes learning. If students do not feel secure in class, their learning
will be hindered. Conversely, a good relationship with the teacher and classmates can
help students cope with the challenges they face. The more positive students
experience in class, the more rapid their adaptability and progress will be.
The English teacher, along with the two TAs, creates a cooperative and effective
learning environment for students to get involved in. In this challenging but
non-threatening atmosphere, students learning awareness is triggered and their
anxiety is turned into learning motivation. Anxiety, if reduced or modified, may
promote learning and improve performance. The results of this research do provide a
proof for this hypothesis.
There are no significant overall differences between the two TAs classes.
Nevertheless, students in the English TAs class seem to have a little higher level of
satisfaction and learning awareness. Thus, they tend to spend more time preparing
for the final exam. Consequently, they make a little more progress.

160

As for the group differences, the basic group in the medical TAs class seems to
feel more insecure about the learning environment. But each group in the English
TAs class seems to be more stable since there are no group differences in their
satisfaction with the program, the English teacher and the English TA. However, both
basic groups with the highest learning awareness make the most progress. On the
contrary, both advanced groups with the lowest learning awareness make the least
progress.
In conclusion, student learning can be enhanced with the help of either the
medical TA or the English TA. But is it because of the differences in teaching
assistants backgrounds which make the basic group in the medical TAs class feel
more insecure? Or is it because the English TA is a doctoral candidate mastering
language learning skills, he can help solve English learning problems? These
questions are worth being deeply discussed in the future.
Yet, the findings in this study show that students in the English TAs class seem
to be more stable and make more progress. But fortunately, this program is a field
between medical education and English education. And the medical TA is a medical
professional specializing in medicine, so she can provide students with practical help
to interpret the medical information. And probably thats the reason why the basic
group in her class can make a similar and satisfactory progress at the end.
The final question of this research is Which level of students will benefit most
from teaching assistant system? From the above findings, the lower level students
have higher level of learning anxiety. But through the cooperative and effective
learning environment, their negative anxiety is turned into positive learning
awareness, and then into positive learning motivation and finally into the significant
progress. Therefore, of the three levels, the basic students benefit the most from
teaching assistant system, and the advanced students the least.
No matter what differences there are among the three groups or between the two
teaching assistants, the most important is that most members of this research engage
themselves in LEARNING. It seems that almost each member benefits from this

161

collaborative environment, including students, the TAs and the English teacher. In
this challenging but non-threatening atmosphere, most students are willing to take
the challenge to face their learning difficulties. They are encouraged to read the
English original texts gradually and naturally. And this is the best result of this study.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study was supported by Grant No. CMU95-068 awarded by China Medical
University. Special thanks to the two teaching assistants in this study, Miss Jie-Yi
Yen (a dietician at China Medical University Peikang Hospital) and Mr. Kuei-Chia
Liang (a doctoral candidate of Comparative Literature at Chung Cheng University),
whose engagement was the key to student success.

REFERENCES
1. Asensio-Prez, J., Dimitriadis, Y., Heredia, M., Martnez, A., lvarez, F., Blasco,
M.& Osuna, C. (2004). Collaborative Learning Patterns: Assisting the
Development of Component-Based CSCL Applications. PDP, 218-224
2. Davis, S. F., Grover, C. A. & Burns, S. R. (2004). Training and Evaluating
Masters-level Graduate Teaching Assistants. Preparing the New Psychology
Professoriate: Helping Graduate Student Become Competent Teachers. Eds.
Buskist W., Beins, B. C. and Hevern, V. W., 42-48.
3. Friedland, E.S. & Truscott, D.M. (2005). Building Awareness and Commitment
of Middle School Students through Literacy Tutoring. Journal of Adolescent and
Adult Literacy, 48(7), 550-562.
4. Greenhalgh, T. (1993). Medicine Today. London: Longman.
5. Hendry, G.., Heinrich, P., Lyon, P.M., Barratt, A.L., Simpson, J.M., Hyde, S.J.,
Gonsalkorale, S., Hyde, M. & Mgaieth, S. (2005). Helping Students Understand
Their Learning Styles: Effects on Study Self-Efficacy, Preference for Group
Work, and Group Climate. Educational Psychology, 25(4), 395-407.

162

6. Hirsch, C. & Supple, D. (1996). 61 Cooperative Learning Activities in ESL.

Portland: J. Weston Walch, Publisher.
7. Hyatt, D.F. & Beigy, A. (1999). Making the Most of the Unknown Language
Experience: Pathways for Reflective Teacher Development. Journal of
Education for Teaching, 25(1), 31-40.
8. Jacobs, G. (1997). Four or More Eyes Are Better Than Two: Using Cooperative
Learning to Maximize the Success of Group Activities in Reading. Paper
presented at the Singapore Symposium on Reading for Success.
9. Luo, J., Grady, M. L. and Bellows, L. H. (2001). Instructional Issues for
Teaching Assistants. Innovative Higher Education, 25(3), 209-230.
10. Lyon, D. C. (2002). Achievement through Small-Group Discussion Sessions in
Large General Chemistry Lecture Classes with the Aids of Undergraduate Peer
Teaching Assistants. Uni. of Texas at Austin.
11. Morrison, J.L., Rha, J. & Helfman, A. (2003). Learning Awareness, Student
Engagement, and Change: A Transformation in Leadership Development.
Journal of Education for Business, 79(1),11-17.
12. Roberts, E., Lilly, J. & Rollins, B. (1995). Using Undergraduates as Teaching
Assistants in Introductory Programming Courses: an Update on the Stanford
Experience. Proceedings of the Twenty-sixth SIGCSE Technical Symposium on
Computer Science Education, pp.48-52.
13. Samson, S. & Millet, M. (2003). The learning environment: First-year students,
teaching assistants, and information literacy. Research Strategies, 19, 84-98.
14. Shen, Y. M. (1995). A Comparative Study of Views on English Cultural
Materials between Medical and Chinese Medical Students. Newsletter for
Teaching the Humanities and Social Sciences, 6(4), 113-131.
15. Shen, Y. M. (1996). Differences and Similarities between Medical Practitioners
and Medical Students on Medical English Learning. Proceedings of the
Thirteenth Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of
China, Hsinchu, Taiwan, pp. 31-40.

163

16. Shen, Y. M. (2002). A Study on the English Evaluation Tests in Medical College
by the Correlation Analysis between TOEFL Scores and English Proficiency.
Journal of General Education, 4, 101-117.
17. Shen, Y. M. (2003) The Factors Affecting the Reading Comprehension of
English Content Textbooks in College. Proceedings of 2003 National
Conference on English Teaching and Learning, Huwei, Taiwan, pp. 18-33.
18. Shen, Y. M. (2005). Applicability of English Adaptive Practices in Medical
Universities. Journal of General Education, 8, 125-146.
19. Shen, Y. M. (2006) The Problems and the Prospectives of Current Medical
English Curriculum. Journal of General Education, 10, 51-69.
20. Short, D. (1999). New Ways in Teaching English at the Secondary Level. New
Ways in TESOL Series II: Innovative Classroom Techniques. Waldorf, MD:
TESOL Publications.
21. Soukup, G.. J., Warhol, J., Lillis, T., Hatten, T., Matlock, R., Hefty, T., Crawford,
S., & Severe, B. (2005). Is it Better for PE/Kinesiology Graduate Assistants to
Teach University Activity Classes, or for Athletic Coaches to Teach these
Classes? Journal of Physical Education, 76(4), 46.
22. Watkins, D.& Biggs, J. (1996). The Chinese Learner: Cultural, Psychological,
and Contextual Influences. Victoria, Australia: The Australian Council for
Educational Research, Ltd.
23. Wei, Chin-Lung. (1996). Taiwanese college EFL learners perceptions of
cooperative learning. Educational Research and Information Bi-monthly, 4(6),
13-26.
24. Woytak, L. (1998). Applied Language Learning, 1989-1998. Applied Language
Learning, v1-9:
1989-1998.

164

Appendix A. Medical English Course Outline
Title: Medical English
Credits: 2
Time: 3:25-5:10 pm, Wed & Thu; 8:40-12:20 am, Fri
Location: Peikang campus
Target student: Freshman (4 classes)
Class size: 50 people
1. Objectives:
A. develop reading skills in medical English articles.
B. help students learn new medical information.
C. help students understand their roles in the future medical work and develop medical ethics.
2. Content:
week
Course content
Activity after lecture
1
INTRODUCTION
Discussion with TA
2 Medical video
Discussion with TA
3 Introduction to medical terms (root prefix suffix)
Discussion with TA
4 Introduction to medical terms (root prefix suffix)
Group 1 (Unit 1: Becoming a doctor)
Discussion with TA
5 oral report
Group 2 (Unit 2 : The obstetrician)
Group 3 (Unit 3: The clinical geneticist)
Discussion with TA
6 oral report
Group 4 (Unit 4: The pediatrician)
Group 5 (Unit 5: The physician)
Discussion with TA
7 oral report
Group 6 (Unit 6: The surgeon)
Discussion with TA
8 Comprehensive Discussion
9
MIDTERM EXAM
Group 7 (Unit 7: The epidemiologist)
Discussion with TA
10 oral report
Group 8 (Unit 8: The radiologist)
Group 9 (Unit 9: The general practitioner)
Discussion with TA
11 oral report
Group 1 (Unit 10: The doctor in the Third World)
Group 2 (Unit 11: The clinical immunologist)
Discussion with TA
12 oral report
Group 3 (Unit 12: The transplant team)
Discussion with TA
13 Comprehensive Discussion
Group 4 (Unit 13: The psychiatrist)
Discussion with TA
14 oral report
Group 5 (Unit 14: The venereologist)
Group 6 (Unit 15: The intensive care doctor)
Discussion with TA
15 oral report
Group 7 (Unit 16: The terminal care doctor)
Group 8 (Unit 17: The doctor and the law)
Discussion with TA
16 oral report
Group 9 (Unit 18: Alternative medicine)
Comprehensive Discussion
Discussion with TA
17
18
FINAL EXAM

3. Method of teaching: Explanation; introduction to medical terms (root prefix suffix); group
discussion; group oral presentation and written paper.
4. Grading and requirements: Two oral presentations 20%; written paper 10%; TAs evaluation
30%; midterm exam 20%; final exam 20%
5. Required texts and other sources:
A. Greenhalgh, T. (1993). Medicine Today. London: Longman.
B. Some materials edited by the teacher.
C. Internet medical information.

165