跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(35.172.223.251) 您好!臺灣時間:2022/08/11 23:02
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

: 
twitterline
研究生:陳松靖
論文名稱:三位學生教師數學教學概念轉變歷程的個案研究
指導教授:金鈐金鈐引用關係
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺灣師範大學
系所名稱:數學研究所
學門:數學及統計學門
學類:數學學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2002
畢業學年度:90
語文別:中文
論文頁數:111
中文關鍵詞:教師專業發展教學功力教學概念學生教師
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:21
  • 點閱點閱:530
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:164
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:7
本研究是探究三位學生教師在師資培育後兩年中,數學教學概念的狀態及其轉變的歷程。研究設計採用問卷調查法、選樣晤談法、及教室觀察法,研究的取樣對象為國立台灣師範大學數學系三年級的一班24位學生教師。問卷調查的結果透過因子分析顯示,這群學生教師有六個共通的主要因子。以這六個因子所表徵的教學認同空間,篩選出小凱、小龍、和小宗三個個案。他們呈現出兩種不同思考數學教學的觀點。其一認同由教師講授數學內容的「知識傳遞者」,另一則認同以學生活動為主的「知識引動者」。接著,依據這兩個向度的相對位置,分析這三個個案在大三和大四兩年間教學概念的起始狀態、過程狀態、和目標狀態。同時,也以互動、反思、教學功力、和數學功力作為研究者介入的取向,嘗試引動他們教學概念的轉變。
結果顯示具補習班教學經驗的小凱,他的模擬教學和試教活動大半是補習班教學的翻版,採用「教師概念解說─教師精選範例演示─學生反覆練習」的教學步驟。由於長期的補教經驗和格式化的教學模式,使得小凱沒能察覺數學教學的問題,且持有強烈知識傳遞者的教學概念。原先認為「老師教得多,學生才會收穫多」、且堅持數學知識應完整教授的小龍,由於修讀研究所高等數學課程的受挫經驗,而察覺到學生學習動機的重要,其教學概念呈現由知識傳遞者轉向知識引動者的跡象。至於小宗,雖然有意圖以生活實例或操作活動啟動教學並透過師生對話激發學生的思考,但是,這樣的觀念並未在課堂的教學中實踐。他的模擬教學和試教活動的步驟乃依據「教師概念解說─教師課本例題演示─學生上台演練」的模式。其原因可能是師資培育者輔導介入的不足,或是缺乏實際教學經驗,導致小宗無法察覺教學問題所在。
這三位個案教師即將進入教學實習的階段,他們目前的教學概念狀態和九年一貫課程對數學教師和教學活動的期待有很大的落差。本研究的結果有助於師資培育者,掌握學生數學教師階段性教學概念學習的狀態和內涵;並可用於設計相關數學師資培育的課程,促進其教學專業的發展,以縮短學生教師教學概念和數學課程期待之間的落差。
This paper describes the states and progress of a group of three student teachers’ conceptions of mathematics teaching within a two-year period in the secondary mathematics teacher education programme. It was carried out through questionnaire survey, interview and classroom observation. The student participants were a group of 24 pre-service mathematics teachers. The first year results revealed six salient conceptions of mathematics teaching from the group, in particular with two different states of conceptions of mathematics teaching derived from the three cases. Two student teachers identify themselves with the roles of ‘a knowledge transmitter’, and the other sees himself as ‘a knowledge initiator’. In the light of this, their conceptions of mathematics teaching related to these two teacher roles and the possibility of introducing an scaffolding for learning consisting of the notions of interaction, reflection, and mathematical and pedagogical power, are examined in terms of the second year data.
One of the three students, ST1, taught consistently the procedures of solving mathematical problems as in a cram school. ST2 thought that students’ abilities of solving mathematical problems are more important than understand them at the initial stage. But due to the frustrated experiences gained in learning advanced mathematics course, he came to see the importance of student inner motivation which should be the major focus of his classroom teaching. For ST3, he intended to teach mathematics using manipulative and communication with students, however not being observed in classroom practices.
As a result, “felt problematic” and “felt relevant” seem to be the two starting points of facilitating the transition of conceptions of mathematics teaching for these three student teachers. Understanding of the different states of learning about student teachers’ conceptions of mathematics and teaching might be useful for mathematics teacher educators in designing relevant educational programs to facilitate the professional development of student teachers.
中文摘要…………………………………………………………………..…...1
英文摘要.............................................................................................................2
目次.....................................................................................................................3
附錄目次.............................................................................................................5
圖目次.................................................................................................................6
第一章 緒論............................................................................................7
第一節 研究背景和動機......................................................................7
第二節 研究目的...............................................................................13
第二章 文獻探討..................................................................................15
第一節 教學概念的意義和內涵.........................................................15
第二節 教學概念的形成和轉化.........................................................19
第三節 教學概念的學習....................................................................22
第三章 研究方法..................................................................................31
第一節 研究對象與個案選取............................................................32
第二節 研究設計...............................................................................36
第三節 研究限制...............................................................................43
第四章 研究結果..................................................................................47
第一節 教學概念的起始狀態-意圖面向..........................................47
第二節 教學概念的起始狀態-實作面向..........................................51
第三節 教學概念的過程狀態............................................................56
第四節 教學概念的目標狀態............................................................66
第五節 教學概念的轉變....................................................................74
第五章 討論和回顧..............................................................................79
第一節 學生教師數學教學概念轉變的因素......................................79
第二節 「感覺有問題」應是引動教學概念轉變的起點.....................81
第三節 「感覺和自己教學相關」也應是引動教學概念轉變的起點.....82
第六章 結論和建議..............................................................................85
參考文獻..................................................................................................89
中文部分
1.李源順(1998):校內數學教師專業發展的互動模式。師大學報:科學教育類,民87,43(2),1-23。
2.呂玉琴(1994):國小教師分數教學之相關知識研究。國立台灣師範大學博士論文。
3.林福來(1997):教學思維的發展:整合數學教學知識的教材教法(1/3)。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告。
4.林福來(1998):教學思維的發展:整合數學教學知識的教材教法(2/3)。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告。
5.金鈐和林福來(1998):準數學教師學習教學之前的教學觀念及其緣起。科學教育學刊,219-254。
6.金鈐(2000):數學教師教學信念的文獻分析。(科學教育學刊審查中)
7.金鈐(2001):教學價值的數學師資培育研究(1/3)。國家科學委員會專題研究進度報告,國立台灣師範大學數學系。
8.高薰芳、林盈助、和王向葵合譯(2001):質化研究設計─一種互動取向的方法。台北市:心理出版社。
9.教育部(2000):國民中小學課程綱要-數學學習領域,p.135-163。
10.曹亮吉(1996):阿草的葫蘆─文化活動中的數學。台北市:遠哲科學教育基金會。
11.張宏志和柳賢(1995):數學科實習教師實習期間之教學相關技能、教學態度及價值觀的改變分析研究。國科會專題研究計畫成果報告。
12.張淑玲和林福來(2001):一位實習教師的專業社會化歷程。師大學報:科學教育類,46(1,2), 65-88。
13.陳松靖和金鈐(2001, 12月):準數學教師教學概念的起始狀態分析。論文發表於中華民國第十七屆科學教育學術研討會。高雄市:國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所。
14.陳舜芬、丁志仁、和洪儷瑜(1996):師資培育與教師進修制度的檢討。行政院教育改革審議委員會。
15.黃桂妮(1997):國中數學教師的數學教學知識之分析-關於文字符號的使用。國立高雄師範大學碩士論文。
16.黃凱旻(2001, 12月):中學數學實習教師教學概念轉變及輔導策略之研究。論文發表於中華民國第十七屆科學教育學術研討會。高雄市:國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所。
17.鄭英豪(2000):學生教師數學教學概念的學習:以「概念啟蒙例」的教學概念為例。國立台灣師範大學博士論文。
英文部分
1.Bernstein, B. (1990). The structuring of pedagogic discourse (Vol. IV). Class, codes, and control. London: Routledge.
2.Brendefur, J., & Frrykholm, J. (2000). Promoting mathematical communication in the classroom: two preservice teachers’ conceptions and practices. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 3, 125-153.
3.Brown, C. A., & Borko, H. (1992). Becoming a mathematics teacher. In A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp.209-239). NY: Macmillan.
4.Brown, S. I., Cooney, T. J., & Jones, D. (1990). Mathematics teacher education .In W.R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education (pp.639-656). NY: Macmillan.
5.Calderhead, J. & Gates, P. (1993). Introduction. In J. Calderhead, & P. Gates (Eds.), Conceptual reflection in teacher development (pp. 1-10). London: Flamer Press.
6.Chin, C. (2001). Developing mathematics teachers’ pedagogical values: clarification, argumentation, identification, and action as co-learning cycle. Invited paper presented at The Netherlands and Taiwan Conference on Common Sense in Mathematics Education, Taipei, Taiwan.
7.Cobb, P., & McClain, K. (2001). An approach for supporting teachers’ learning in social context. In F.-L. Lin & T. J. Cooney(Eds.), Making Sense of Mathematics Teacher Education (pp.207-231). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
8.Cockcroft, W. H. (Chairman) (1982). Mathematics Counts. London: HMSO.
9.Cooney, T. J. (1994). Teacher education as an exercise in adaptation. In D. B. Aichele & A. F. Coxford(Eds.), Professional development for teachers of mathematics: 1994 yearbook (pp. 9-22). Reston: NCTM.
10.Cooney, T. J., Shealy, B. E. & Arovld, B.(1998). Conceptualizing belief structures of pre-service secondary mathematics teachers. Journal for Research in Mathematic Education, 29, 306-333.
11.Cooney, T. J. (2001). Considering the paradoxes, perils, and purposes of conceptualizing teacher development. In F.-L. Lin & T. J. Cooney(Eds.), Making Sense of Mathematics Teacher Education (pp.9-31). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
12.Dawson, S. (1999). The enactive perspective on teacher development: ‘A path laid while walking’. In B. Jaworski, T. Wood, & S. Dawson(Eds.), Mathematics Teacher Education: Critical International Perspectives (pp. 148-162). London: Falmer Press.
13.Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking go the educative process. Chicago: Henry Regnery.
14.Dubinsky, E. (1991). Reflective abstraction in advanced mathematical thinking. In D.O. Tall(Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking(pp. 95-123). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
15.Fennema, E., & Franke, M. L. (1992). Teachers’ knowledge and its impact. In Grouws, A. (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp.147-164). NY: Macmillan.
16.Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P., & Peterson, P. J. (1989). Teachers’ decision making and cognitively guided instruction: A new paradigm for curriculum development. In K. Clements & N. F. Ellerton (Eds.), Facilitating change in mathematics education. Australia: Deakin University Press.
17.Fereshteh, H. (1996). The nature of teaching, effective instruction, and roles to play: a social foundations’s perspective. Contemporary Education, Vol. 68, No. 1, 73-75.
18.Freudenthal, H. (1991). Revisiting Mathematics Education. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
19.Frykholm, J. A. (1999). The impact of reform: challenges for mathematics teacher preparation. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 2, 79-105.
20.Fuller, F. & Brown, O. (1975). On becoming a teacher. In K. Ryan (Ed.), Teacher education (The 74th year of the National Society for the Study of Education, pp.25-52), Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
21.Goffree, F., & Dolk, M. (Eds.) (1995). Standards for primary mathematics teacher education. Utrecht University: The NVORWO Commission.
22.Goodell, J. (2000). Learning to teach mathematics for understanding: The role of reflection. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, Vol. 2, 48-61.
23.Goos, M. (1999). Scaffolds for learning: A sociocultural approach to reforming mathematics teaching and teacher education. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, Vol. 1, 4-21.
24.Gravemeijer, K. (1994). Educational development and developmental research in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Vol. 25, No. 5, 443-471.
25.Gravemeijer, K. (2001). Developmental research, a course in elementary data analysis as an example. Invited paper presented at The Netherlands and Taiwan Conference on Common Sense in Mathematics Education, Taipei, Taiwan.
26.Jacob, E. (1987). Qualitative research traditions: a review. Review of Educational Research, Vol. 57, No.1 , 1-50.
27.Jaworski, B. (1999). The plurality of knowledge growth in mathematics teaching. In B. Jaworski, T. Wood, & S. Dawson(Eds.), Mathematics Teacher Education: Critical International Perspectives (pp. 180-209). London: Falmer Press.
28.Kathryn, C. I., & Murray, S.B. (1999). Teachers’ knowledge of mathematics and reflective profession development. In B. Jaworski, T. Wood, & S. Dawson(Eds.), Mathematics Teacher Education: Critical International Perspectives (pp. 91-101). London: Falmer Press.
29.Kirk, J. & Miller, M.L. (1986). Reliability and validity in qualitative research. The United States of America: Sage Publications.
30.Koehler, M. S. & Grouws, D.A. (1992). Mathematics teaching practices and their effects. In Grouws, D.A. (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning. NY: Macmillan.
31.Krainer, K. (1999). PFL-Mathematics: Improving professional practice in mathematics teaching. In B. Jaworski, T. Wood, & S. Dawson (Eds.), Mathematics Teacher Education: Critical International Perspectives (pp. 102-112). London: Falmer Press.
32.LaBoskey, V. K., (1993). A conceptual framework for reflection in preservice teacher education. In J. Calderhead, & P. Gates (Eds.), Conceptual reflection in teacher development (pp. 23-38). London: Flamer Press.
33.Leinhardt, G., & Smith, D.A. (1985). Expertise in mathematics instruction: Subject matter knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 3, 247-271.
34.Lerman, S. (1999). A review of research perspectives on mathematics teacher education. Proceedings of International Conference on Mathematics Teacher Education (pp.110-133).
35.McLeod, D. B. (1992). Research on affect in mathematics education: A reconceptualization. In Grouws, A. (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp.575-598). NY: Macmillan.
36.McIntyre, D. (1993). Theory, theorizing and reflection in initial teacher education. In J. Calderhead, & P. Gates (Eds.), Conceptual reflection in teacher development (pp. 39-52). London: Flamer Press.
37.National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston: Author.
38.National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston: Author.
39.Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
40.Peterson, P. L. (1988). Teachers’ and students’ cognitional knowledge for classroom teaching and learning. Educational Researcher, 17(5), 5-14.
41.Putnam, R. T., Lampert, M., & Peterson, P.L. (1990) Alternative perspectives on knowing mathematics in elementary schools. In C.B. Cazden (Ed.), Review of research in education (pp.57-150). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
42.Ruthven, K., & Coe, R. (1994). A structural analysis of students’ epistemic view. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 27, 101-109.
43.Ruthven, K. (1998). Reconstructing professional judgment in mathematics education: From good practice to warranted practice. Rethinking the Mathematics Curriculum (pp.158-171). London: Falmer Press.
44.Ruthven, K. (2001). Mathematics teaching, teacher education and educational research: developing “practical theorizing” in initial teacher education. In F.-L. Lin & T. J. Cooney(Eds.), Making Sense of Mathematics Teacher Education (pp.165-183). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
45.Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioners: How professionals think in action. NY: Basic Books.
46.Sfard, A. (1989). Transition from operational to structural conception: The notion of function revisited. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference of PME, Vol. 3, pp. 151-8.
47.Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Research, 15(2), 4-14.
48.Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 57, No. 1, 1-22.
49.Simon, M. A., & Schifter, D. (1991). Towards a constructivist perspective: An intervention study of mathematics teacher development. Education Studies in Mathematics, 22, 309-331.
50.Simon, M. A. (1994). Learning mathematics and learning to teach: Learning cycles in mathematics teacher education. Education Studies in Mathematics, 26, 71-94.
51.Simon, M. A. (1995). Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist perspective. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Vol.26, No.2, 114-145.
52.Simon, M. A., & Tzur, R. (1999). Explicating the teacher’s perspective from the researchers’ perspective: Generating accounts of mathematics teachers’ practice. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Vol.30, No.3, 252-264.
53.Sullivan, P. (1999). Thinking teaching: seeing an active role for mathematics teacher. Proceedings of International Conference on Mathematics Teacher Education (pp.194-204). Taipei: National Taiwan Normal University.
54.Swanson, D., Schwartz, T., Ginsburg, H., & Kossan, N. (1981). The clinical interview: validity, reliability, and diagnosis. For the Learning of Mathematics 2, 31-37.
55.Tall, D., Gray, E., Ali, M. B., Crowley, L., DeMarois, P., McGowen, M., Pitta, D., Pinto, M., Thomas, M., & Yusof, Y. (2001). Symbols and the bifurcation between procedural and conceptual thinking. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 81-104.
56.Thompson, A. G. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of the research. In Grouws, A. (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp.127-146). NY: Macmillan.
57.Vygotsky, L. S. (1934) (edited by A. Kozulin, 1996): Thought and language. London: MIT Press.
58.Weissglass, J. (1994). Changing mathematics teaching means changing ourselves: implications for professional development. In D.B. Aichele & A.F. Coxford(Eds.), Professional development for teachers of mathematics: 1994 yearbook (pp. 67-78). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
59.Wilson, S. M., Shulman, L. S., Richert, A. E. (1987). “150 different ways” of knowing: Representations of knowledge in teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring teachers’ thinking (pp. 104-124). London: Cassell.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top