臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

在台灣，英語教育向下延伸至小學三年級，外籍教師的影響力也漸由體制外擴充到學校體制內。此現況引發吾人對小學中外師協同教學之英語教育的重視。本研究除瞭解跨文化協同教學之中外師教學現況，亦從教師的角度出發，對其教學認知及認知實踐進行全面性的探討，此為創新之一。研究以全校僅有十三個班級的台北縣小型偏遠學校---霏霏國小為場域，研究對象有二：樂樂老師(中籍教師，簡稱中師)非英語相關科系畢業，有四年教學經驗；蘇珊老師(外籍教師，簡稱外師)是擁有二十四年社會科教學經驗的美籍教師。有別於過去中外師協同教學相關研究多以問卷的量化方式進行教師教學行為的探討，本研究採質性取向之觀察、訪談作為資料蒐集的方法，經討論分析後，獲致以下結論。
在協同教學的合作與課堂面貌方面，本研究有以下三點發現。首先，中、外籍教師皆呈現鮮明的教學色彩，但彼此在合作中的教學任務同中有異。其次，兩位教師合作時間點有二：課前討論聚焦於教學呈現的順序與教學段落的分配；課堂上，根據課前協議的教學內容各自呈現，彼此教學互動有限。第三，中師的教學富「學習者中心」的意味；外師則傾向「教學者中心」，兩人截然不同的風格為此合作增添些許衝突成分。
研究亦發現個案中外師在教學認知上異多於同。兩人對教師專業、教學元素豐富性的想法一致，也同樣具有多元評量的概念。然而，在目標、對象、活動、協同教學方面，兩人看法有極大差異。就目標而論，中師認為學習興趣、動機等情意的養成比智育發展迫切；外師注重智育目標的達成。就對象而論，中師認為對學習結果的標準應隨學生個別差異而調整；外師對學習者持一致的高度期許。就活動而論，中師強調教學設計能力與巧思，主張藉多元有趣活動，達到教學的情意目的；外師強調透過不斷重複的方式協助學生對內容精熟。就協同而論，中師表示此教學型態有多元輸入、真實溝通情境與互動、語言成長、專業發展及文化交流的積極功能；外師認為協同功能在於語言隔閡的破除及文化交換。
在教師認知與實踐方面，研究發現個案教師的教學認知往往決定其教學行為，教學行為對教師個體的認知修正實例並不多見。另，本研究亦發現中外師在教學認知實踐歷程中受到學生特性、教材準備便利性、教學時數、教材可得管道熟悉度、台灣英語教育生態、學校規模(教學負荷)、教學夥伴等具體情境因素影響，使其認知與教學行為不盡相符。
研究者根據研究結果，提出以下建議。首先，教育主管機關在甄選外師時，須考量其專業背景與人格特質，並適時提供英語或協同教學專業訓練，促進其對我國教學文化的瞭解。學校方面，應協助外師認識學校文化，縮短其教學適應的摸索期；並鼓勵外師支援校內英語相關活動，增進其工作認同感。建議參與協同之中外師對教學理念持續溝通，包容不同的教學風格；透過書寫教學札記或閱讀書籍，反思自身教學的想法與決策。對於後續研究建議有三：首先，配合刺激回憶、放聲思考等方法，深入了解個別教師認知；在研究對象方面，可探討不同專業背景、不同地區教學者的認知與實踐；在研究內容上，可將學生對教學的反應，如學習動機、學習成效納入中外師協同教學的研究範圍。

Intrigued by how local and foreign English teachers co-teach in public elementary schools, this qualitative study aimed to understand the two participant instructors’ teaching practices and cognition, as well as the relationship between their teaching cognition and practices. This study was conducted in a small school located in Taipei County consisting of thirteen classes. Before the study was conducted, the local teacher, a non-English major, had four-year teaching experiences; and the foreign teacher had taught social studies in America for twenty-four years. Class observations for fifteen weeks and interviews with the two instructors were used as data sources.
The findings of this study were as follows. First, both the foreign and local teachers took responsibilities in teaching, yet actually, responsibilities for them were different. Moreover, they only cooperated at two aspects. Before class, they decided the sequence and distribution of teaching contents. They took turns teaching according to their previous agreement. Further, the two instructors’ teaching styles are extremely different. The local teacher was more student-centered, and foreign instructor teacher-centered.
Second, the two teachers share more differences than similarities in their teacher cognition. Although their ideas about the teaching profession, material diversity and multi-evaluation were same, their opinions about the teaching objectives, students, activities, and co-teaching were different. As for teaching objective, the local teacher emphasized student interest and motivation; the foreign teacher viewed student learning achievement highly. As for teaching objectives, the local teacher adjusted standard to meet students’ individual differences; the foreign teacher evaluated all the students using the same standard. As for classroom activities, the local teacher favored an excellent course design and motivating activities; the foreign teacher tended to assist pupils learning with mechanical repetition. As for co-teaching, the local teacher considered it helpful for multi-input, authentic communication contexts, language growth, professional development, and cultural exchanges, whereas the foreign teacher regarded cultural exchanges and the breaking of language barrier as the major function.
The third finding was pertinent to the connection between the two teachers’ teacher cognition and teaching practices. The study found the former always determined the latter, while the situation where behavior modifies cognition is rarely found. The study also discovered some disagreements between cognition and practice. They are caused by factors, such as students’ characteristics, material preparation, time limitation, access to teaching resources, English education contexts, the scale of school, and the co-teaching partner.
Based on the findings of the study, the following suggestions were made for policy makers and co-teachers as well as for future research. First, the Ministry of Education should take a teacher’s personality and educational background into consideration when choosing foreign teachers. Moreover, to make them understand educational contexts in Taiwan, providing professional training is necessary. Elementary schools were suggested to take the initiative to facilitate foreign teachers to be familiar to the school context. Also, the school could encourage foreign teachers to support English-related activities, so as to make them identify with the school more. As for co-teachers, continual communication was suggested for respect to each other’s teaching, and teaching dairy keeping as well as reading were also suggested for reflection and decision-making. For future research, three suggestions were made. First, stimulated recall or think aloud could be used to thoroughly explore teacher cognition. Second, teachers in different districts or teachers with different backgrounds could be participants in future studies. Third, students’ responses to co-teaching, their motivation or achievement can be foci for future research.

目次…………………………………………………………………………V
圖表目次……………………………………………………………………VII

第一章 緒論………………………………………………………………01
第一節 研究動機…………………………………………………………01
第二節 研究目的與研究問題……………………………………………04
第三節 重要名詞釋義……………………………………………………05

第二章 文獻探討…………………………………………………………07
第一節 教師認知與課程教學……………………………………………07
第二節 外籍教師與學校英語教育………………………………………33
第三節 協同教學…………………………………………………………46

第三章 研究設計與實施…………………………………………………58
第一節 研究方法的選擇…………………………………………………58
第二節 研究架構與流程…………………………………………………59
第三節 資料蒐集與分析…………………………………………………64
第四節 研究場域與研究對象……………………………………………69
第五節 研究者角色與研究倫理…………………………………………72

第四章 結果與討論………………………………………………………74
第一節 中外師協同教學的英語課堂……………………………………74
第二節 教師認知的內涵…………………………………………………101
第三節 中外師教學認知的實踐…………………………………………128

第五章 結論與建議………………………………………………………152
第一節 研究結論…………………………………………………………152
第二節 建議………………………………………………………………158

參考文獻…………………………………………………………………164
一、中文部份……………………………………………………………164
二、英文部分……………………………………………………………169

附錄………………………………………………………………………176
附錄一 中外籍教師英語協同教學觀察紀錄表………………………176
附錄二 教師訪談大綱…………………………………………………178
附錄三 研究同意函……………………………………………………187
附錄四 課堂觀察逐字片段……………………………………………189

中文部分
丁文祺 (2001)。外籍教師之英語教學現況調查研究－以高雄市國民中學英語教學為例。國立高雄師範大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，高雄。
方炳林 (1979)。教學原理。台北：教育文物出版公司。
王文科 (1995)。教育研究法。台北：五南圖書。
王恭志 (2000)。教師教學信念與教學實務之探析。教育研究資訊，8(2)，84-94。
毛佩琦譯 (2003)。Diane. L. F. 著。英語教學法大全。台北市：師德。
中國視聽教育學會 (1988)。系統化教學設計。台北：師大書苑。
引進外籍教師教部與英國簽約。(2004年8月13日)。國語日報。檢索日期：2007年8月7日。取自http://www.mdnkids.com/info/news/adv_list.asp
江莉蓁 (2006)。當東方遇上西方--中外師英語協同教學的故事。國立新竹教育大學人資處語文教學碩士論文。
李育奇 (1993)。國中生接受美國教師教授英語會話之調查研究---嘉義市立大業國中實施報告。人文及社會學科教學通訊，3(5)，133-148。
李坤崇 (2001)。綜合活動學習領域教材教法。台北市：心理。
李佳錦 (1994)。國中理化教師的教學信念研究。國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
李智令 (2002)。高雄市國小啟智班實施協同教學現況之研究。國立高雄師範大學特殊教育學系碩士班碩士論文。
李園會 (1999)。協同教學法。台北：心理。
李麗君 (2002)。職前教師教學信念及其改變之研究。中學教育學報，9，1-26。
吳芝儀、李奉儒譯 (1995)。Patton. M.Q.著。質的評鑑與研究。台北縣：桂冠。
吳冠薇 (2007，11月16日)。從宜蘭經驗看國小中外師協同教學。英語教育電子月刊，37。2008年6月20日，取自http://ejee.ncu.edu.tw/feature.asp?period=37&flag=37
吳清山、林天祐 (1999)。協同教學。教育資料與研究，26，83。
吳碧霞(2004)。以「協同教學」模式進行綜合活動學習領域之個案研究。國立台北師範學院課程與教學研究所碩士論文。
吳慧芳，湯艷鳳整理 (1994)。中西喜相逢---何瑞元談外籍教師的教學與管理。敦煌英語教學雜誌，1，15-16。
林怡瑾 (2002)。外籍教師擔任新竹市國小英語教學之研究。國立新竹師範學院課程與教學研究所碩士論文。
林清財 (1990)。我國國民小學教師教育信念之相關研究。國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文。
林進材 (1997)。國民小學教師教學思考之研究。國立台灣師範大學教育研究所博士論文。
林進材 (1999)。教學理論與方法。台北市：五南。
周美瑜 (2005)。新竹市國民小學英語協同教學之研究。國立台北師範學院兒童英語教育研究所碩士論文。
周淑惠 (1999)。一位國小教師國語科教學信念之研究。國立台北師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
松川禮子 (1999)。日本小學導入英語教育的現狀與課題。教育研究資訊，7(2)，13-25。
柯啟瑤 (2000)。協同教學初探。翰林文教雜誌，15，8-35。
施玉惠、周中天、陳淑嬌、朱惠美 (1998)。國小英語教學實施現況與未來規劃方向。載於中華民國英語文教師協會(主編)，第七屆中華民國英語文教學國際研討會論文集第二冊(759-778)。台北：文鶴。
高紅瑛 (2000)。協同教學的理念與實踐。教育研究月刊，77，57-62。
高強華 (1992)。教師信念研究及其在學校教育革新上的意義。台灣師大教育研究所輯刊，第34集，85-113頁。
高敬文 (2002)。質化研究方法論。台北：師大書苑。
莊明貞、陳怡如譯 (2005)。Corrine Glesne著。質性研究導論。台北：高等教育。
莊淑琴 (1998)。國小教師數學信念之研究。國立嘉義師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
莊雅彣 (2007)。台中市國小高年級學童對外籍教師英語教學意見之調查研究。國立台中教育大學教育學系碩士論文。
閆建華、劉建剛 (2001)。外籍教師在中國的英語教學透視。四川外語學院學報，17(2)，103-104。
張世忠 (2001)。協同教學模式初探。教育研究資訊，9(4)，66-82。
張清濱 (1999)。怎樣實施協同教學。師友，387，43-47。
陳珊華，賴孟俞 (2007)。亞洲國家之外籍英語師資探究---以日本、韓國及中國為例。第二屆新竹市國小英語中外師偕同教學研討會論文集，54-64。
陳淑嬌 (2000)。國小英語習得規劃。英語教學，24(4)，53-67。
陳淳麗 (1999)。揭開師訓的面紗：談國小英語師資之培訓---參與台北市國小英語師訓有感。敦煌英語教學雜誌，21，7-11。
陳雅莉 (1994)。教師教育信念與班級經營成效關係之研究。國立台北師範學院初等教育研究所碩士論文。
教育部 (2000)。國民中小學九年一貫課程總綱綱要。台北：教育部。
教育部 (2003.4.21)。引進英語外籍師資政策目標與執行計畫專案報告。立法院第五屆第三會期。台北：教育部。
湯仁燕 (1993)。國民小學教師教學信念與教學行為關係之研究。國立臺灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文。
黃良惠 (1995)。參與開放教育國小教師的教學信念與教學行為之研究。國立台灣師範大學家政教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
黃政傑 (1998)。教學原理。台北：師大書苑。
黃炳煌 (1982)。課程理論之基礎。台北：文景。
黃炳煌 (1987)。從教學的概念分析談教學設計。現代教育，7(7)，87-103。
黃瑞琴 (1980)。質的教育研究之倫理課題。國民教育，30(5,6)，45-47；30(7,8)，56-59。
黃瑞琴 (1991)。質的教育研究方法。台北：心理。
楊思偉 (1999)。小學英語教育問題之探討－日本經驗之比較。教育研究資訊，7(2)，6-12。
楊深坑 (1988)。理論、詮釋與實踐。台北：師大書苑。
廖柏森 (2004，2月28日)。引進外籍師資與國內英語教學。英語教育電子月刊，5。 2007年10月4日，取自 http://ejee.ncu.edu.tw/showfeature.asp?CO_no=96
廖智倩、闕月清 (2001)。淺談「健康與體育」學習領域之協同教學。課程與教學季刊，4(4)，113-128。
蔡立婷 (2005)。宜蘭縣中外籍英語教師協同教學之研究。國立花蓮教育大學國民教育研究所碩士論文。
編輯室整理 (2003，12月28日)。新竹市國小英語教育推動實施情形，英語教育電子月刊，5。2008年6月20日，取自http://ejee.ncu.edu.tw/teacherarticle/4-2shinchuinterview.htm
鄭玉卿 (2002)。協同教學理念的發展與教師專業社群的建立—從課程史的角度談起。載於台北市立師範學院初等教育學系(主編)，教育論叢(147-154頁)。台北：台北市立師範學院。
鄭惠鳳 (2004)。外籍教師在苗栗縣擔任英語教學之研究。國立台北師範學院教育政策與管理研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北。
劉欣茹 (2002)。一位國小美勞教師教學信念與實踐之個案研究。國立台北師範學院課程與教學研究所碩士論文，未出版。
劉顯親 (2000)。英語師資培育及專業發展：以教學反省為例。教育研究資訊，8(6)，150-170。
劉顯親 (2002)。一項國小英語教學方案之紀實--引進外師之「跨文化」衝擊。英語教學，27:1，1-20。
歐陽教 (1986)。教學的觀念分析。載於中國教育學會編，有效教學研究。台北：台灣書店。
駐日代表處文化組 (2002.11.11)。日本國小英語教學情形。檢索日期：民96年10月24日。取自國立教育資料館-國外教育訊息全文資料庫。
蕭福生 (1999)。生動活潑的學習型態－協同教學。教師天地，102，52-57。
蕭福生 (2001)。國民小學協同教學實施之分析研究以一所國小為例。國立台師範學院課程與教學研究所碩士論文。
錢濤 (1974)。協同教學法研究。台灣教育輔導月刊，24(8)，18-23。
賴艷琴 (2004)。台北市國民小學實施協同教學現況之研究。臺北市立師範學院社會科教育研究所碩士論文。
謝惠德 (1995)，反省與教學：一位高級中學化學教師信念的詮釋性研究。國立高雄師範大學科教所碩士論文。
藍雪瑛 (1995)。我國國民中學國文教師教學信念及形成因素之研究。國立台灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
顏銘志 (1996)。國民小學教師教學信念、教師效能與教學行為之相關研究。國立屏東師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。未出版。
簡紅珠 (1992)。教學研究的主要派典及其啟示之探析。高雄：復文。
簡楚瑛 (1995)。我國幼稚園教師教育信念與教學行為之相關因素研究。(國科會研究計畫：NSC84-2411-H134-009)
蘇進棻 (2001)。中共中小學教師分級制度之探討。教育研究資訊，9(2)，58-79。

英文部分
Anderson, J. (1993). Is a communicative approach practical for teaching English in China? Pros and cons. System, 21(4), 471-480.
Anderson, W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.) (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Blooms’ taxonomy of educational objectives. NY: Longman.
Bae, S. T. (1990). Student teachers’ thought processes: The evolution of two student teachers’ professional beliefs during their student teaching period. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Barratt, L. & Kontra, E. (2000). Native English-speaking teachers in cultures other than their own. TESOL Journal, 9(3), 19-23.
Bauch, P. A. (1982). Predicting elementary classroom teaching practices from teachers’ educational beliefs.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 226437)
Bauch, P. A. (1984). The impact of teachers’ instructional beliefs on their teaching: Implications for research and practice. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 252954).
Bloom, B. S. (Ed.) (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals, Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. NY: Longman, Green.
Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: a review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36(2), 81-109.
Borg , S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. New York: Continuum.
Bromme, R. (1987). Teachers’ assessment of students’ difficulties and process in understanding in the classroom. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring teachers’ thinking (pp,125-146). London: Cassell.
Brophy, J. E. & Good, T. L. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M. C. Wittrock, (ed), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed) (pp, 328-375). New York: Macmillan.
Buckley, F. J. (2000). Team teaching: What, why, and how? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Calderhead, J. (1987a). Exploring teachers’ thinking. London: Cassell Educational.
Calderhead, J. (1987b). Developing a framework for the elicitation and analysis of teachers’ verbal report. Oxford Review of Education, 13(2), 183-188.
Carless, D. (2002). Conflict or collaboration: Native and non-native speakers team teaching in schools in South Korea, Japan and Hong Kong. Paper presented at the 7th ESEA conference, Baptist University. Retrieved November 6, 2007, from http://www.ied.edu.hk/eng/research/dc/Teamteaching
Carless, D. R. (2006). Good practices in team teaching in Japan, South Korea and Hong Kong. System, 34(3), 341-351.
Clark, C. M. & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers’ thought process. In M. C. Writtrock 　　　　(Eds), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed) (pp, 255-296). New York: Macmillian.
Clark, C. M. & Yinger, R. J. (1979). Three studies of teacher planning. Research Series No. 55. East Lansing, Michigan State University, Institute for Research on Teaching.
Clark, C. M. & Yinger, R. J. (1987). Teacher planning. In J. Calderhead(Ed.) Exploring teachers’ thinking (pp, 84-103). London: Cassell.
Clark, L. H. & Callahan, J. F. (1982). Teaching in the middle and secondary school. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co. Inc.
Davis, H. S. (1966). How to organize an effective team teaching program. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Erickson, F. (1986). Voices, genres, writes, and audiences for the “Anthropology and Education Quarterly”. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 17(1), 3-5.
Feiman-Nemser, S. & Floden, R. E. (1986). The culture of teaching In M.C.Wittrock (ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.) (pp, 505-526). New York: Macmillan.
Fenatermacher, G.. D. (1978). A philosophical consideration of recent research on teacher effectiveness. Review of Research in Education, 6, 157-185.
Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief,attitude,intention and behavior: An
introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Friend, M., Reising, M. & Cook, L. (1993). Co-teaching: An overview of the past, a glimpse at the present, and considerations for the future. Preventing School Failure, 37(4), 6-10.
Gay, L. R. (1992). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application(4th ed.). New York: Merrill.
Gill, S. & Rebrova, A. (2001). Native and non-native: together we're worth more. ELT Newsletter, Article 52. cited from http://www.eltnewsletter.com/back/March2001/art522001.htm
Grant, T. J., Hiebert, J. & Wearne, D. (1994). Teachers’ beliefs and their responses to reform-minded instruction in elementary mathematics. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED376170)
Harmer, J. (1983). The practice of English language teaching. Longman.
Harvey, O. J. (1986). Beliefs systems and attitudes toward death penalty and other punishments. Journal of psychology, 54(4), 659-675.
Jackson, P. W. (1968). Life in Classroom. New York : Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Johnson, K., & Morrow K. (Eds.) (1981). Communication in the Classroom. Essex: Longman.
Kennedy, R. L. & Wyrick, A. M. (1995). Teaching as Reflective Practice. Paper present at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 393850)
Kraus, C. D. (1983). The influence of first grade teachers’ conceptual framework of reading on their students’ perceptions of reading and behavior. ( Doctoral dissertation, Kent State University). Dissertatuon Abstracts International, 45, 476A.
Lundgren, U. P. (1972). Frame factors and the teaching process. Stockholm: Elmquist& Wiksell.
Macedo, A. R. (2002). Team-teaching: who should really be in charge? A Look at reverse vs. traditional Team-Teaching. Unpublished doctorial dissertation, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Mayer, R. H. (1985). Recent research on teacher beliefs and its use in the improvement of instruction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. ( ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED 259457)
McCutcheon, G. (1980). How do elementary school teacher plan? The nature of planning and influence on it. Elementary School Journal, 81(1), 4-23.
Medgyes, P. (1992). Native or non-native: who’s worth more? ELT Journal, 46(4), 340-349.
Medgyes, P. (1994). The Non-native teachers. London: MacMillan.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Case study research in education. CA: Jossey-Bass.
Morine-Dershimer, G. (1977). What’s in a plan? Stated and unstated plans for lessons. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
Murdoch, Y. D. (2002). Korean Foreign Language and Native Speaker Teachers. Journal of the Korea English Education Society, 1(2).
Nespor, J. (1985). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching: Final report of the teacher beliefs study. Austin , TX: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED270446)
O’Loughlin, M. (1989). The influence of teachers’ beliefs about knowledge, teaching and learning on their pedagogy: A constructivist reconceptualization and research agenda for teacher education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED339679)
Olson, J. (1981). Teacher influence in the classroom: A context for understanding curriculum translation, Instructional Science, 10, 259-275.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62 (3), 307-332.
Park, J. (1997). English teaching in Korean elementary school: Curriculum, instruction, and teacher education. The Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on English Teaching, 464-472 Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co., Ltd.
Parkay, F. W. & Stanford, B. H. (2000). Becoming a teacher. Boston, Mass: Allyn & Bacon.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publication.
Phillipson, R. (1992). ELT: The native speaker’s burden? ELT Journal, 46(1), 12-18.
Porter, A. C. & Freeman, D. J. (1986). Professional orientations: An essential domain for teacher testing. Journal of Negro Education, 55, 284-292.
Rao, Z. (1996). Reconciling communicative approaches to the teaching of English with traditional Chinese methods. Research in the Teaching of English, 30(4), 458-471.
Raymond, A. M. (1993). Unraveling the relationships between beginning elementary teachers’ mathematics beliefs and teaching practices.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 390694)
Shavelson, R. J. & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers’ pedagogical thoughts, judgements, decisions, and behavior. Review of Educational Research, 51(4), 455-498.
Sigel, I. E. (1985). A conceptual analysis of beliefs.In I. E. Sigel(Ed.), Parental belief systems: The psychological consequences for children (pp, 345-371). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Singer, I. J. (1964). What team teaching really is. In D.W. Beggs, Ⅲ(Ed.), Team teaching: Bold new venture (pp, 13-22). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Tabachnick, B. R. & Zeichner, K. M. (1985). The development of teacher perspectives: Final report.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 266099)
Tajino, A. & Tajino, Y. (2000). Native and non-native: what can they offer? Lessons from team-teaching in Japan. ELT Journal, 54(1), 3-11.
Takada, T. (2000). The Social Status of L1 Japanese EFL Teachers. TESOL Matters, 10(3).
Tang, C. (1997). On the power and status of nonnative ESL teachers. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 577-580.
Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Valdez, A. (1991). Classroom management beliefs and practices in an early childhood classroom: A case of Mrs. W.’s conflict of interest. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 340513).
Verma, S. & Peters, D. (1975). Day care teachers’ practices and beliefs. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 21(1), 46-55.
Woods, D. (1996). Teacher Cognition in Language Teaching: beliefs, decision-making and classroom practice. Melbourne, Australia: Cambridge University Press.
Yonemura, M. A. (1986). Teacher at work: Professional development and the early childhood educator. New York：Teachers College Press.