Title

教師在過程性概念與物質性概念上的教學表徵之比較研究

Translated Titles

A Study on Teachers’ Instructional Representations of Process and Matter Concepts

Authors

簡芊卉

Key Words

本體論 ; 資深教師 ; 初任教師 ; 教學表徵 ; ontology ; experienced teacher ; novice teacher ; instructional

PublicationName

臺灣師範大學生命科學系學位論文

Volume or Term/Year and Month of Publication

2009年

Academic Degree Category

碩士

Advisor

林陳涌

Content Language

繁體中文

Chinese Abstract

本研究欲了解資深及初任的國中生物教師在「過程性概念」與「物質性概念」上所使用教學表徵之差異。本研究採教室觀察法,於97年9月至98年3月進入現場觀察並錄影錄音,收集教師教學資料,並透過焦點團體訪談,蒐集學生的觀點。研究結果如下:1.不同本體概念的教學:兩位教師在圖表說明、問答、討論、示範、類比、舉例上差異較明顯。2.資深教師在「過程性概念」常使用動態板書、生活經驗舉例、主題分組討論、多元類比與強調特性的方式幫助學生理解過程性概念。3.資深教師在「物質性概念」使用靜態板書、生活經驗舉例、類比的方式,並結合過程性概念統整說明。4.初任教師在兩種不同屬性概念之教學表徵差異較不明顯,傾向使用表格、綱要的靜態板書、引用課本圖片及課文舉例,有時採用物質性用語來說明過程性概念。5.於過程性概念上,學生認為透過動態板書、生活舉例、示範可加深印象。6.於物質性概念上,學生認為靜態版書標明物質構造部位,利用表格總整理,可使觀念清晰易懂。本研究建議教師在不同本體屬性的概念上應採用不同的教學表徵與語言;建立動態板書的模式;提供初任教師觀摩資深教師教學的機會,以加速成長;最後,從概念本體屬性的觀點進行教學改良。

English Abstract

This study was attempted to understand how experienced and novice teachers differ in their uses of instructional representations between process concepts and matter concepts. Classroom observation was the principal method used in collecting teaching data. And in order to explore the students’ viewpoints, the focus group interview was used.The findings are as below:1. In different ontological of concepts:Teachers had difference in illustration, question-answer, demonstration, analogy and exemplifying. 2. Experienced teacher often used dynamic blackboard-notes, everyday experience, team discussion, analogy in different ways and emphasizing characteristics to enhance students comprehension for process concepts.3. Experienced teacher used static blackboard-notes, everyday experience, analogy and integrating process concepts in teaching matter concepts.4. Novice teacher had no apparent difference in instructional representations for two kinds of concepts. He mainly used tables, outlines as blackboard-note and quoted pictures and examples from the textbook. Sometimes he also used material terms to explain process concepts.5. Students like to learn process concepts with dynamic blackboard-notes, and feel like everyday experience and analogy can make deep impressions.6. Students also rely on teacher’s static blackboard-notes for labeling structure. Using tables can help clear the concepts.The study suggests that teachers should take different kinds of instructional representations, language in different ontological concepts; Construct dynamic-blackboard-notes process model; Provide chances for novice teachers to watch experienced teachers’ teaching; in the end, taking improvement of instruction from the view point of concept ontology.

Topic Category 理學院 > 生命科學系
生物農學 > 生物科學
Reference
  1. 李暉 (1999):科學話語與科學概念之學習:以國中生理化課學習為例。彰化師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文。
    連結:
  2. 林芬遠 (1996):國中生物課口語之探討。彰化師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
    連結:
  3. 邱美虹 (1998):概念改變研究的省思。論文發表於中華民國第十四屆科學教育學術研討會。高雄市:國立高雄師範大學。
    連結:
  4. 邱美虹 (2000):概念改變研究的省思與啟示。科學教育學刊,8(1),1-34.
    連結:
  5. 洪綺霞 (2004):國中資淺暨資深自然科教師概念組織、教學表徵、發問問題類型與評量方式之研究-以溫度與熱單元為例。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
    連結:
  6. 郭立研 (2005):初任及資深國珠生物教師的教學比較-以『動物體內的資訊網』和『生物體內的恒定性與調節』單元為例。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
    連結:
  7. 郭義章 (1998):國中初任理化教師思考與呈現其學科教學知識之個案研究。科學教育期刊,1998(8), 53-69.
    連結:
  8. 黃佳杏 (2007):從突現過程本體面向探討生物恆定性概念改變-以七年級學生為例。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
    連結:
  9. 劉麗玲 (2000):國中資深理化教師教學表徵之個案研究。國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
    連結:
  10. 蔡美娟 (1999):國中資深與初任生物教師運用生活事例於教學之個案比較。國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
    連結:
  11. Ball, D. L. (1990). The mathematical understandings that prospective teachersteachers bring to teacher education. Elementary School Journal, 90(4), 449-466.
    連結:
  12. Barak, J. (1999). As ‘process’ as it can get: Students’ understanding of biological processes. International Journal of Science Education, 21(12), 1281-1292
    連結:
  13. Berliner, D. C. (1986). In pursuit of expert pedagogue. Educational Researcher, 15(7), 5-13.
    連結:
  14. Borko, H., & Livington, C. (1989). Cognition and improvisation: Differences in mathematics instruction by expert and novice teahers. American Educational Research Journal, 26(4), 473-498.
    連結:
  15. Buckley, B. C., & Boulter, C. J. (2000). Investigating the role of representations and expressed models in building mental models. In J. K. Gibert and C. J. Boulter (Eds.), Developomg models on science education (pp.119-135). Dorfrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
    連結:
  16. Chi, M. T. H. (2005). Common sense conceptions of emergent processes:Why some misconceptions are robust. Journal of the Learning Sciences,14, 161-199.
    連結:
  17. Chi, M. T. H., Slotta, J. D. & Leeuw, N.D. (1994). From things to processes: a theory for conceptual change for learning science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 4, 27-43.
    連結:
  18. Clermont, C. P.,Borko, H.,& Krajcik, J. S. (1994). Comparative study of the pedagogival comtent knowledge of experienced and novice chemical demonstrators. Journal of research in Science Teaching, 31(4),419-441.
    連結:
  19. Duit, R. (1991). On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science. Science Education, 75(6), 6349-672.
    連結:
  20. Fuller, F. F. & Bown , O. H. (1975). Becoming a teacher. In K. Ryan(Ed.), Teacher education (74th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education).Chicago :University of Chicago Press.
    連結:
  21. Garnett, P. J., & Tobin, K. (1988). Teaching for understanding: Exemplary practice in high school chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(1), 1-14.
    連結:
  22. Hauslein, P. L., Good, R. G.., & Cummins, C. L. (1992). Biology cognitive structure:From science student to science teacher. Journal of in Science Teaching, 29(9), 939-9460.
    連結:
  23. Hieberrt, J., & Carpenter, T. P.(1992). Learning and teaching with understanding. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning(pp.65-97). New York: Macmillan
    連結:
  24. Leinhardt, G., & Smith, D. A. (1985). Expertise in mathematics instruction: Subject matter knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(3), 247-271.
    連結:
  25. Lemke, J. L.(1990). Talking science:Language, learning, and values. Norwood,NJ: Ablex.
    連結:
  26. Lin, Chen-Yung & Reping Hu (2003). Student’ understanding of energy flow and matter cycling in the food chain, photosynthesis, and respiration. International Journal of science education,25(12), 1529-1544.
    連結:
  27. Mayr, E. (1982) The growth of biological thought: Diversity, evolution and inheritance, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
    連結:
  28. Mayr, E. (1997). This is biology: The science of living world. Cambridge, MA:The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
    連結:
  29. MacDonald, D. (1996). Making both the nature of science and science subject matter explicit intent of science teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 7(3), 183-196.
    連結:
  30. Miller, J.G. 1973. “Living system”,the Quarterly Review of Biology 48,63-276.
    連結:
  31. Nagel, E. (1961). The structure of science:Problems in the logic of sciencetific explanation. New York:Harcourt, Brace & World.
    連結:
  32. Rosenberg, A. (1985). The structure of biological science, New York, Cambridge University Press.
    連結:
  33. Roth, Wolff-Michael (2005). Talking Science: Language and Learning in Science Classrooms; Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.; 2005-06-00.
    連結:
  34. Shulman,L.S. (1986).Those who understand:Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher,15(2), 4-14.
    連結:
  35. Sterberg, R. S., & Horvath, J. A.(1995). A prototype view of expert teaching. Educational Researcher, 24(6), 9-17.
    連結:
  36. Thiele, R. B., & Treagust, D. F. (1994). The nature and extent of analogies in secondary chemistry textbooks. Instructional Science, 22, 61-74.
    連結:
  37. Waheed, T., & Lucas, A.M. (1992). Understanding interrelated topics: Photosynthesis at age 14+. Journal of Biology Education, 26(3), 193-199.
    連結:
  38. Zoubeida Dagher & George Cossman (1992). Verbal explanations given by science teachers: their nature and implication. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 29(4), 361-374.
    連結:
  39. 參考文獻
  40. 一、中文
  41. 王韶霙 (2002):國中生物科資深教師教學策略之個案研究。國立高雄師範大學碩士論文。
  42. 李坤崇 (2004):修訂Bloom認知分類與命題實例。教育研究月刊 2004(6), 98-127.
  43. 李憶萍 (1996):一位高中生物教師教學表徵的詮釋性研究。國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
  44. 汪玉婷 (1992):國中地球科學教師學科教學知識之研究。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
  45. 林美淑 (2004):國中自然科教師學科教學知識成長之行動研究。彰化師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
  46. 林曉雯 (1994):國中生物教師教學表徵的詮釋性研究。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文。
  47. 高惠瑾 (2005):探究一位效能教師教學概念生態的教學表徵與學生科學概念學習之分析研究。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
  48. 涂可欣 (譯) (2004):Mayr, E.著。看!這就是生物學。台北:天下遠見出版社。
  49. 康軒文教事業出版社 (2007):國中自然與生活科技教科書 第一、二冊。
  50. 張春興 (1996):教育心理學-三化取向的理論與實踐(修訂版)。台北:東華書局。
  51. 張鳳珠 (1996):科學教師對其教學與教學行為之知覺與思考。國立彰化師範大學科學教育學系碩士論文。
  52. 張賴妙理 (1999):初任暨資深國中生物教師在運輸作用、遺傳與演化單元的教學表現之個案研究。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文。
  53. 郭蕙菊 (2003):國民小學實習教師與初任教師教育專業認知之研究。國立嘉義大學國民教育研究所碩士論文。
  54. 陳向明 (2007):社會科學質的研究。台北市:五南出版社。
  55. 舒煒光 (1984):觀察與理論。科學哲學導論 p251-282。台北市:五南圖書出版社。
  56. 黃永和 (1997):教學表徵-教師的教學法寶。國教世紀,178,17-24。
  57. 詹耀宗 (1994):科學教學中之語言行為-一位國民中學理化教師之詮釋性研究。國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
  58. 謝裕昇 (2007):探討國中學生對自然科教師口語解釋理解情形之研究。國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
  59. 鐘瑞珍 (2001):國中生物教師教學表徵與學生學習之關係。國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
  60. 二、西文
  61. Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J., & Wittock, M. C. (2001). Summary of the Changes from the original framework. In. L. W. Anderson, D. R. Krathwohl, P. W. Airasian, K. A. Cruikshank, R. E. Mayer, P. R. Pintrich, J. Raths, & M. C. Wittock (Eds.), A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing:A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives (pp.263-270). New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
  62. Berliner, D. C. (1988). The development of expertise in pedagogy.American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Washington, D.C. (ED 298 122)
  63. Burry, J. A., & Bolland, K. A. (1992). Describing expert science teaching. Journal of Personnal Evaluation in Education, 5,313-319.
  64. Chi, M.T.H. & Roscoe, R.D. (2002). The processes and challenges of conceptual change. In M. Limon and L. Mason (Eds). Reconsidering Conceptual Change: Issues in Theory and Practice. (pp. 3-27). Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands.
  65. Fey, J. T.(1970). Patterns of verbal communication in mathematics classes. New York:Teacher college, Columbia University.
  66. Fisher, K. M. (2000). The nature of biology knowledge. In K. M. Fisher, J. H. Wandersee, & D. E. Moody (Eds.), Mapping biology knowledge (pp.25-37).Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  67. Gall, M. D. (1987). Disscussion method. In M. J. Dunkin (ed.), the international encyclopedia of teaching and teacher education. New York: Pergamon.
  68. Grossman, P. L., Wilson, S. M., & Shulmsn, L. S.(1989). Teachers of substance: Subject matter knowledge for teaching. In M. C. Reynolds (Ed.), Knowledge base for the beginning teacher. New York: Pergamon Press.
  69. Lesh, R. (1979). Mathematical learning disabilities: Condsiderations for identification, diagnosis, and remediation. In R. Lesh, D. Mierkiewicz, & M.G. Kantowski(Eds), Applied Mathematical Problem Solving. Columbus, OH:ERIC/SMEAR.
  70. Lin, S. W.,& Yang, J. H. (1998). Biology teachers’ knowledge base of instructional representations. Proceedings of the National Science Council. ROC(D), 8(1),22-32.
  71. McDiarmid, G..W., Ball, D.L. & Anderson, C.W. (1989). Why staying one chapter ahead doesn’t really work:Subject-specific pedagogy. In M. C. Reynolds(Ed.), Knowledge Base for the beginning teacher. Oxford:Porgamon Rress.
  72. Smith, B. O. & Meux, M. O. (1970). A study of the logic of teaching. Urbana: Bureau of educational research, College of Education.
  73. Wilson, S. M., Shulman, L. S., & Richert, A.E. (1987). “150 different ways”of knowing: Representations of knowledge in teachinf. In J,Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring Teachers’Thinking. London:Cassell.
Times Cited
  1. 紀貫騰(2015)。使用教學表徵在國二自然與生活科技領域之行動研究。中原大學教育研究所學位論文。2015。1-140。