:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:任務導向夥伴關係促進職前生物教師專業成長之探討
作者:林莞如
作者(外文):Wan-Ju Lin
校院名稱:國立彰化師範大學
系所名稱:科學教育研究所
指導教授:王國華
黃世傑
學位類別:博士
出版日期:2011
主題關鍵詞:任務導向專業成長夥伴關係職前教師TOPpartnershippre-service teacherprofessionaldevelopmenttask-orientedTOP
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:52
本研究旨在針對一個體制外的異質性國中生物教師專業成長社群,為了探討其任務導向夥伴關係(Task-Oriented Partnership,簡稱TOP)所發展出來的模式、成效、及影響因素,而針對其中兩位職前教師進行質性研究的詮釋性研究,自2007至2011歷時五年。研究場域為台灣某師資培育大學內的生物營隊、大學周邊之國中科學社團營隊、及個案教師實習學校。資料收集包括晤談、研究日誌、課堂觀察記錄或錄影、線上即時對話紀錄、網路非同步討論區檔案、email、共筆部落格等。所收集之資料以持續比較法,依據「任務」、「關係」、「專業成長」、「影響」等四方面進行編碼,並以三角校正法交叉比對不同來源資料之間的異同,以提高詮釋的準確度。
研究結果顯示出TOP模式始於「僕人領導的夥伴關係」情境下之體制外生物營隊任務,進而在學校體制內實習的師徒制夥伴關係中形成。不論是教學任務或社群的學習活動任務,成員都一起合作進行「腦力激盪、計畫、執行、反思」的循環歷程。兩位個案教師在TOP模式中歷經下列五個階段:1.觀察、2.見習、3.協同試教、4.實習、5.獨立。且研究中可看出TOP模式的結果,表現於個案教師三方面的專業成長:1.專業「教學」知能、2.專業「學習」知能、3.專業教學倫理。研究也發現促進TOP模式成功的因素,在任務方面為:1. 新穎有趣的多元學習、2.異質性協同教學、3.正向回饋的自主任務。在夥伴關係方面則為:1.彼此信任,2.共同願景。3.愛與熱忱。最後,本研究顯示TOP模式為促進職前生物教師專業發展之可行模式。
The aim of this study was to report: (1)how did the Task-Oriented-Partnership model (TOP) formed? (2)what did the TOP model improved to the professional development of pre-service biology teachers? and (3)why did the TOP model developed effectively? The study was lasted for five years(2007-2011) by adopting an ethnography study method on two pre-service biology teachers who participated in a biology teachers community outside the regular school system. The researcher described the professional development of the two case teachers through TOP model by participant observation. The qualitative data including journals, videos, interview records, blogs, web-records, field-notes and other related documents, was analyzed from four aspects: “tasks”, “relationship”, “professional development”, and “effect”. Triangulation was used to enhance the validity of findings.
Here are the results of the research. First, the TOP model started with contexts of partnership under servant-leadership in biology camp tasks outside the system of school; and then formed with mentor-apprenticeship partnership in school-based practicum. No matter the teaching or learning activities in community, all the tasks were taken by partners cooperatively and were around four processes in turns: brainstorm, plan, implementation, and reflection. The two case teachers went through five periods of the TOP model: observation, probation, co-teaching, practicum, and independence. Second, the finding showed that the TOP model improved the professional development to the case teachers in three aspects: professional teaching knowledge and competence, professional learning knowledge and competence, as well as professional practical-moral knowledge and competence. Third, key factors of success for the TOP model were: (1)tasks of “interesting multiple learning”, “heterogeneous collaborative teaching”, and “positive-feedback autonomy”. (2)partnership of “mutual trust”, “shared vision”, and “enthusiasm’. Finally, this study presented the TOP model as a possible model for improving pre-service biology teachers’ professional development.
參考文獻
中文部分:
吳清山(2002)。中小學師資培育。載於周美里主編:邁向正常國家:群策會國政研討會論文集(329-352)。台北縣:群策會財團法人。
吳清山(2006)。師資培育的理念與實踐。教育研究與發展期刊,2(1),1-31。new window
林生傳(1990)。教育社會學。高雄市:復文。
林生傳(2007)。資訊社會中的教師角色研究。教育學術彙刊,1(1),1-14。new window
林旭霞(2004)。校園中的數學研究社群—異所國小的個案研究。國立台北教育大學科學教育研究所碩士學位論文,未出版,台北市。
林信榕(2000)。新制教育實習制度探討—困境與解決之道。教育實習方案研討會(106-134)。台中:東海大學。
林建福(2005)(主編)。教育專業倫理。臺北市:五南出版社。
林淑梤、張惠博、段曉林(2008)。科學實習教師個人實務理論實踐之探究。師大學報: 科學教育類,53(1),1-30。
林瑞昌(2006)。熱情卓越新典範。台北:國立臺北教育大學。
林新發、王秀玲、鄧珮秀(2007)。我國中小學師資培育現況、政策與展望。教育研究與發展期刊,3(1),57-79。new window
卓亦甄(2004)。實施網路案例教學法輔導生物科實習教師教學專業知能之研究。彰化師範大學科學教育研究所碩士學位論文,未出版,彰化市。
邱兆偉、陳明鎮、楊百世 (1999)。國民中學實習教師班級經營及學科教學之成效評估。中小學教師素養與評量研討會會議手冊暨論文彙編(pp.101-115)。高雄:國立高雄師範大學教育系。
段曉林(1995, 9月):學科教學知識對未來師資培育的啟示。論文發表於中華民國第一屆數理教學與師資培育研討會。彰化市:國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所。
秦夢群、吳政達(1996)。國民教育階段學校行政績效指標體系建構之研究。教育資料與研究月刊,68,43-62。new window
許春峰(2004,7月)。實習制度面面觀。論文發表於國立新竹師院、國立教育資料館聯合舉辦之「現代教育論壇-建構理想教育制度」學術研討會, 新竹市: 新竹師範學院。
教育部(2000)。國民教育九年一貫課程暫行綱要。台北:教育部。
教育部(2007)。各師資類科教師專業標準結論。台北市:教育部。
馮菊枝(2001)。新創意POWER教師。台北:講義堂出版公司。
黃政傑、張芬芬(2001)。學為良師─ 在教育實習中成長。台北:師大書苑。
黃萬居、熊瑞棻 (2004)。新世紀國小科學教師專業素養之研究。台北市立師範學院學報,35(2),201-230。new window
黃瑞琴(1994)。質的教育研究方法。台北市:師大書苑。
張宏嘉、李田英(2010)。教育學程對教學實務與教師資格檢定之助益─師資生看法的個案研究。科學教育月刊,334,2-14。
張民杰(2009)。師資培育歷程外一章─ 一位國中初任代理教師的個案研究。教育研究與發展期刊,5(1),59-90。new window
張芳全(2006)。一九九四年以降之台灣教育改革分析。教育資料與研究,68, 221-240。new window
張惠博(1995, 9月)。職前教師科學教育課程設計之研究。論文發表於中華民國第一屆數理教學與師資培育研討會。彰化市:國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所。
張鈿富、王世英、周文菁(2006)。師資培育的供需問題與平衡機制探討。教育資料集刊,31,139-155。new window
張靜嚳 (1995)。建構主義與數理教學。建構與教學,1,1-2。
陳聖謨(1998)。「檔案」在師資培育上的應用。教育研究資訊,6(2),150-156。new window
楊思偉(1994)。美國Holmes Group小組『教師專業發展學校』之探討。載於中華民國師資培育學會主編,師資培育多元化與師資素質(頁17-33)。台北:師大書苑。
溫明麗(2008)。Hedgehog principle 刺蝟原則。教育101:教育理論與實踐。台北:高等教育出版社。
蔡明學(2006)。我國師資培育機構運作滿意度調查之研究。教育研究與發展期刊,2(1),93-118。new window
簡茂發、彭森明、李虎雄、毛連塭、吳清山、吳明清、林來發和黃長司(1998)。中小學教師基本素質之分析與評量。台北市:教育部。







英文部分:
Abell, S. K. (2008). “Twenty Years Later: Does pedagogical content knowledge remain a useful idea?” International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1405-1416.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1998). Blueprints for reform. New York: Oxford University Press.
Barley, W. A. (1995). Portfolios for pre-service teacher education: Procedures and promises. Paper present at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA. U.S.A.
Barrows, H. S., & Tamblyn, R. M. (1980). Problem-based learning-An approach to medical education. New York. Springer.
Bransford, J.D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: brain, mind, experience, and school (expanded.). Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Briscoe, C., Wells, E. (2001). Reforming primary science assessment practices: A case study of one teacher’s professional development through action research. Teachers as Researchers. 86(3), 417-435.
Carless, D. (2002). "Implementing task-based learning with young learners." ELT Journal, 56(4), 389-396.
Carroll, J. A., Potthoff, D. & Huber, T. (1996). Learning from three years of portfolio use in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 47(4), 253-262.
Chang, C. C. (2001). A study on the evaluation and effectiveness analysis of web-based learning portfolio (WBLP). British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(4), 435-458.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American Educator, 6(11), 38-46.
DeJong, L., & Groomes, F. (1996). A constructivist teacher education program that incorporates community to prepare students to work with children living in poverty. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ536849)
Feiman-Nemser, S., & Parker, M. (1993). Mentoring in context: A comparison of two U.S. programs for beginning teachers. International Journal of Educational Research, 19(8), 699–718.
Farmer, L. S. J. (2003). Partnerships for lifelong learning.Worthington: Linworth.
Fetters, M. K., & Vellom, P. (2001). Linking schools and universities in partnership for science teacher preparation. In D.R. Lavoie and W-M. Roth (Eds.), Models of science teacher preparation pp.67-88, Netherlands: Kluwer Acade mic Publishers.
Gess-Newsome, J., & Lederman, N. G. (1990). The preservice microteaching course and science teachers’ instructional decisions: A qualitative analysis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(8), 717-726.
Gess-Newsome, J., & Lederman, N.G. (1993). Preservice biology teachers’ knowledge structures as a function of professional teacher education: A year-long assessment. Science Education,77, 25–45.
Goodnough, K., Hung, W. (2009). Enhancing pedagogical content knowledge in elementary science. Teaching Education, 20(3), 229-242.
Gordon, S. P. & Maxey, S.(2000). How to help beginning teachers succeed.(2nd ed.), Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Pp.2-5.
Gratch, A. (1998). Beginning teacher and mentor relationships. Journal of Teacher Education, 49(3), 220-227.
Hammersley, M.(2002)Educational research, policymaking and practice. London: Paul Chapman Publishers.
Hargeave,C. P., & Thompson, A. D. (2001). TEAMS: A science learning and teaching apprenticeship model. Models of science teacher preparation: Theory into practice. (pp.31-47). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
James, K. (1999). Understanding successful partnershipsand collaborations, Parks & Recreation, 34(5), 38-47.
Johnson, D. W, Johnson. (1991). Learning mathematics and cooperative learning: Lesson plans for teachers. Interaction Book Company, Minnesota.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Learning together and alone-Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning. NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kind, V. (2009). Pedagogical content knowledge in science edution: Perspectives and potential for progress. Studies in Science Education, 45(2), 169-204.
Kristjannson, K. (2002). In defence of ‘Non-expansive’ character education. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 36(2), 135-156.
Lavoie, D. R., & Roth, W.-M. (2001). Models of science teacher preparation: Theory into practice. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Lee, J.-N. & Kim, Y.-G. (1999). Effect of partnershipquality on is outsourcing success: Conceptual framework and empirical validation. Journal of Management Information Systems, 15(4), 29-61.
Liebowitz, J., Rubenstein-Mentano, B., McCaw, D., Buchwalter. J., & Browning. C.(2000). The knowledge of audit. Knowledge and Process Management, 7(1), 3-10.
Lin, W. J. (1998). The effects of restructuring biology teaching by a constructivist teaching approach. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Diego.
Longworth, N. (2003). Lifelong learning in action:Transforming education in the 21st century. London:Kogan Page.
Lovie-Kitchen, J. (1991). Problem-based learning in optometry. In D. Boud, & G. Feletti(Eds.), The challenge of problem-based learning.(pp.194-202). London: Kogan Page.
Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J. e Borko, H. Nature, Sources and Development of Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Science Teaching. In: Gess-Newsome, J. e Lederman, N. G. Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education. USA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 95-132, 1999.
Marx, R. W., Freeman, J G, Krajcik, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (1998). Professional development of science teachers. In B. J. Fraser & K G Tobin (Eds.), International handbood of science education (pp.667-680). Dorbrecht, The Netherlands, Kluwer.
Masciotra, D., & Roth, W.-M. (1999, March). Beyond reflection-in action: A case study of questioning in science teaching. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston, Mass.
Mokhtari, K., Yellin, D., Bull, K. & Montgomery, D. (1996). Portfolio assessment in teacher education: Impact on preservice teachers’ knowledge and attitudes. Journal of Teacher Education, 47(4), 245-252.
National Academy of Science. (1995). National science education standards. [On-line]. Available: http://www.nap.edu/nap/online/nses/.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Nilsson, P., & Van Driel, J., (2010). Teaching together and learning together – Primary science student teachers’ and their mentors’ joint teaching and learning in the primary classroom. Teaching and Teacher education, 26, 1309-1318.
Northfield, J., Gunstone, R., & Erickson, G. (1996). A constructivist perspective on science teacher education. In D. F. Treagust, R. Duit, & B. J. Fraser (Eds.), Improving teaching and learning in science and mathmatics (pp. 201-211). New York: Teachers College, Colimbia University.
Ogawa, RT, Crowson, RL, Goldring, EB (1999). "Enduring dilemmas of school organization", in Murphy, J., Louis, KS (Eds),Handbook of Research on Educational Administration, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp.277-95.
Park, S. & Oliver, J. S. (2008). Revisiting the conceptualisation of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as professionals. Research in Sciences Education, 38, 261–284.
Peterson, R. F., & Treagust, D. F. (1998). Learning to teach primary science through problem-based learning. Science Education, 82(2), 215-237.
Putnam, R., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 29(1),4-15.
Roberts, M. S., & Pruitt, Z. E.(2003). School as professional learning communities: Collaborative activities and strategies for professional development. Thousand oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Roth, R. A. (1996). Standards for certification, licensure, and accreditation. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 242-278). New York: Macmillan.
Russett, J. (1995). Using telecommunication with perservice teachers. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 14(1/2), 65-75.
Ryan, K. (ed) (1975). Teacher education: The seventy-fourth year of the national society for the study of education. Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.
Schon, D. A. (1996). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toeard a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Senge, P. et al. (2000). Schools that learn: A fifth discipline fieldbook for parents, educators, and everyone who cares about education. New York: Doubleday.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1-22.
Shulman, L., & Shulman, J. (2004). How and what teachers learn: A shifting perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36, 257-271.
Stefkovich, J. A. (2001). Ethical leadership and decision making in education: Applying theoretical perspectives to complex dilemmas. New Jersey: Mahwah.
Su, Z. (1990). School-university partnerships: Ideas and experiments (1986-1990). Occupational Paper No.12 Seattle, WA. : Center for Educational Renewal, University of Washington.
The Center for the Advancement of Ethics and Character (2005). Character education. Retrieved on 11 April, 2007, from http://www.bu.edu/education/caec/
The Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow’s teachers. East Lansing. MI: The Holmes Group.
The Holmes Group (1990). Tomorrow’s schools . East Lansing. MI: The Holmes Group.
The Holmes Group(1995). Tomorrow’s schools of education. East Lansing, MI: The Holmes Group.
Tobin, K. (1995). Teacher change and the assessment of teacher performance. In B. J. Fraser & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Improving Science Education (pp. 145-170).
van Driel, J. H., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and reform in science education: The role of teachers’ practical knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 137-158.
Van Manen, M. (1995). On the epistemology of reflective practice. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 1, 33-50.
Vygotsky, L. (1986) Thought and Language. Translation newly revised & edited by Alex Kozulin. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Wilson, S. M., Shulman, L. S., & Richert, A. (1987). “150 different ways of knowing”: Representations of knowledge in teaching. In J. Calderhead(Ed.), Exploring teacher thinking(pp.104-124). Sussex, England: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Wade, R. C. & Yarbrough, D. B. (1996). Portfolio: A tool for reflective thinking in teacher education. Teaching & Teacher Education, 12(1), 63-79.
Wang, K. H., Huang, S. C., Chang, W. H., Lin, S. H., & Lee, S. W. (2004). Design and implementation of a web-based environment to support biology teacher professional development in Taiwan. Paper present at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, La. U.S.A,
Wolf, K. (1996). Developing an effective teaching portfolio. Educational Leadership, 53, 34-37.
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
無相關點閱
 
QR Code
QRCODE