臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：國小教師數學課程教學轉化之個案研究
作者：林文川
作者(外文)：Lin, Wen-Chuan
校院名稱：臺北市立大學
系所名稱：教育學系
指導教授：張煌熙
李心儀
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2016
主題關鍵詞：數學課程教學轉化；教師知識；教學情境；pedagogical transformation of mathematics curriculum；teacher knowledge；situational context of teaching
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:10
本研究旨在探討教師數學課程教學轉化的情形，以及影響教師數學課程教學轉化的因素。因此，本研究聚焦四個研究問題：（一）在數學課程中，兩位國小五年級教師覺知課程教學轉化的情形為何？（二）在數學課程中，兩位國小五年級教師運作課程教學轉化的情形為何？（三）在數學課程中，影響兩位國小五年級教師覺知課程教學轉化的因素為何？（四）在數學課程中，影響兩位國小五年級教師覺知課程教學轉化的因素為何？
在研究方法，以質性取向的個案研究方法。首先，針對個案教師進行教學前的訪談，蒐集教師對教科書的內容和內心式教學計畫等資料，以探討教師知覺課程教學轉化。其次以課室觀察、錄影的方法，蒐集教學中教師的教學行動，分析教師運作課程教學轉化。最後，在教學後，訪談個案教師對於教學前的知覺課程轉化、教學中的運作課程轉化的回顧。研究結果顯示如下：
一、教師知覺課程教學轉化的情形
甲教師在數學概念的轉化，強調教科書內容的數學概念的相互連結；在教學策略的轉化，則將數學概念透過多元、具有數學內涵的教學表徵形式轉化成學生容易學習的教學活動。乙教師在數學概念的轉化，強調教科書內容的數學概念的相互連結，傾向以複習學生數學學習經驗，和引用學生生活相關，或具體操作的教學表徵形式的教學策略轉化內心式教學計畫的依據。
二、教師運作課程教學轉化的情形
甲教師在數學概念的轉化，強調教科書內容重要數學概念的相互連結，解釋數學運算的性質，將數學概念，透過降低數學問題難度和提問開放性問題的教學策略轉化，引導學生進行數學思考和理解數學概念。乙教師在數學概念的轉化，強調教科書內容和內心式教學計畫中數學概念的相互連結，建構學生數學概念的基礎，確認學生解題的正確性，透過降低數學問題難度、調整教學活動和舉例等教學策略的轉化，連結學生數學概念的學習。
三、影響教師覺知課程教學轉化的因素
教師知識影響甲教師關注在數學概念的概念性知識上的轉化，以及以具有數學內涵的教學表徵形式，進行教學策略的轉化；乙教師則關注在數學概念的程序性知識上的轉化，以及以學生生活相關、具體操作的教學表徵形式，進行教學策略的轉化。
教科書版本與內容、學校的例行事務限制甲、乙教師可以選擇教學單元和教學活動。但是，甲教師會依照自己的教師知識來補充或調整教科書的內容，而且乙教師會依照教科書所設定的教學內容和教學活動進行教學，但是會考量學生的生活經驗調整教學活動的順序。
四、影響教師運作課課程教學轉化的因素
教師知識影響甲、乙教師強調數學概念的相互連結，以具體的教學表徵形式的教學策略轉化數學概念。但是，甲教師以提問的教學策略連結學生數學學習，而乙教師以舉例的教學策略連結學生數學學習。
學生數學習作的書寫情形，和參與數學活動的表現是甲教師調整教學內容、教學活動順序、選擇教學策略的主要參考依據。但是，並不會影響乙教師調整教學內容或教學活動順序。在缺乏教學資源下，甲教師使因應課室教學情境，而選用可用的教具替代，乙教師比較傾向使用廠商提供的電子書。
關鍵詞：數學課程教學轉化、教師知識、教學情境
The purpose of this study was to explore the processes and performances of two elementary school teachers’ pedagogical transformation of mathematics curriculum. The main concerns of the study were that（1）what two teachers（Teacher A and B） do in the processes of pedagogical transformation of mathematics curriculum ;（2）how situational contexts of teaching affected the processes of teachers’ pedagogical transformation of mathematics curriculum. A case study was used to investigate the processes of two teachers’ pedagogical transformation of mathematics curriculum. Firstly, the researcher interviewed with teachers to collect data about their curriculum interpretation and teaching planning, and analyzed the data to understand teachers’ pedagogical transformation of perceived curriculum. Secondly, in classroom teaching, the researcher observed teachers’ teaching actions, and videotaped the teaching processes to analyze the pedagogical transformation of teachers’ operational curriculum.
The results of the study indicated that（1）in perceived curriculum, Teacher A emphasized that the connections among mathematical concepts, and transformed mathematical concepts to facilitate students’ learning through various forms of instructional representations with mathematical meanings. Teacher B emphasized that the connections among mathematical concepts, intended to review the students’ mathematical learning experiences, and used situational or concrete instructional representations to form instructional plannings.（2）in operational curriculum, Teacher A emphasized the connections of the important mathematical concepts and interpreted the nature of mathematical operations in the content of the textbook and the instructional plannings. He transformed the meaning of mathematical concepts to guide students’ mathematical thinking and conceptual understanding through decreasing difficulties of mathematical problems and posing the open mathematical questions. Teacher B emphasized the connections of the mathematical concepts and constructed the basis of students’ mathematical concepts in the content of the textbook. He confirmed the correctness of the students’ problem solving, and connected the students’ mathematical concepts through decreasing difficulties of mathematical problems, adjusting the teaching activities, and exampling mathematical problems. （3）in the factors affecting perceived curriculum, the version and contents of the textbook limited Teacher A and B to choose the mathematics lessons and instructional activities. But Teacher A added or adjusted the contents of textbook by using his knowledge in teaching. Teacher B followed the contents and instructional activities of textbook, but adjusted the order of instructional activities based on students’ experiences. The school routine procedures limited time arrangement of Teacher A and B in instructional plannings. （4）in the factors affecting operational curriculum, Teacher A adjusted instructional contents, the order of instructional activities, and chose the teaching strategies based on the performances of students’ homework, and the participation of students’ learning activities. When lacking of the teaching sources, Teacher A chose usable instructional tools to fit the context of classroom. The performances of students’ homework did not influence Teacher B to adjust instructional contents, and the order of instructional activities. Teacher B concerned the participation of students’ learning activities. Teacher B preferred to use the electronic book.
Key word: pedagogical transformation of mathematics curriculum, teacher knowledge, situational context of teaching.
中文部分
卯靜儒（2015）。構繪一位歷史教師的教學轉化。課程與教學季刊，18(4)，57-83。new window
田奇玉（2007）。課程的教學轉化過程及影響因素之研究：一個闡釋性架構之構築。國立臺北教育大學教育政策與管理研究所博士論文，未出版。台北市。new window
呂玉琴（1996）。國小教師的分數知識。臺北師院學報，9，427-460。
李源順（2004）。數學專家教師的專業發展可複製性分析。科學教育研究與發展季刊，2004專刊，95-118。
李源順、林福來、藍珍梅、王品心、鄭雙慧、洪思雅（2010）。國小四年級數學教學錄影研究。科學教育學刊，18（1），63-84。new window
卓益安、金鈐、邱顯義（2010）。以教學反思探究一位高中資深數學教師教學用數學知識的內涵與適應。課程與教學季刊，18（4），29-56。new window
周珮儀（2002）。以實用典啟動九年一貫教育。載於中華民國課程與教學學會主編，新世紀教育工程— 九年一貫課程再造（頁232-251）。台北市：揚智。
林佩璇（2002）。教學知識之研究：從研究典範的轉移到整合理解。課程與教學季刊，5（3），17-34。new window
林進材（1999）。教學研究與發展。台北市：五南。
唐淑華（2011）。眾聲喧嘩？跨界思維？—論「教學轉化」的意涵及其在文史科目教學上的應用。教科書研究，4（2），87-120。new window
徐偉民（2011a）。三位六年級教師數學課程實施之比較。教育研究集刊，57（2），85-120。new window
徐偉民（2011b）。數學課程實施-一位國小資深教師的個案研究。科學教育學刊，19（2），101-122。new window
高博銓（2004）。教學研究的回顧與前瞻。教育研究月刊，121，72-83。new window
高新建（2001）。基本能力的課程與教學轉化。台北市立師範學院學報，32，237-254。
張芬芬（2010）。質性資料分析的五步驟：在抽象階梯上爬升。初等教育學刊，35，87-12。new window
郭玉霞（1997）。教師實務知識與學習教學。國民教育研究集刊，5，39-59。new window
陳向明（2002）。社會科學質的研究。台北市：五南。new window
陳美如（2007）。她，從評鑑走來：從教師的「存」「在」再思課程評鑑。應用心理研究，33，199-230。new window
陳國泰（2006）。國小自然與生活科技資深專家教師幟務知識的發展之個案研究。國立臺北教育大學學報，19（2），31-64。new window
陳埩淑（2000）。課程與教學的關係在課室層面上的探究。教育研究，8，125-135。
黃幸美（2002）。國小教師的數學教材知識與教學觀點之探討。台北市立師範學院學報，33，201-218。new window
黃幸美（2010）。數學課程轉化與教學之探討。載於2010東亞地區課程改革脈絡下：課程改革理念、教科書與教學實踐轉化議題（頁39-66）。課程轉化議題國際學術研討會，11月5-6日。台北市：台北市立教育大學。
黃幸美（2012）。數學教學轉化之探討—以一位有經驗教師之面積初步概念教學為例。教科書研究，5（3），99-129。new window
黃政傑（1997）。課程改革的理念與實踐。台北市：漢文書店。new window
楊雲龍、徐慶宏（2007）。社會學習領域教師轉化教科書之研究。新竹教育大學教育學報，24（2），1-26。new window
葉連祺（2002）。九年一貫課程與基本能力轉化。教育研究月刊，96，49-63。new window
甄曉蘭（2004）。中小學課程改革與教學革新。臺北市：高等教育。new window
鄭明長（1997）。課程實施與課室討論歷程的詮釋分析- 以國小五年級社會課觀察為例。國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文，未出版。
霍秉坤、黃顯華（2010）。課程與教學的概念：學者應用的分析。教育學報，38（1），33-59。new window
簡紅珠（1998）。教師教學決定：內涵、思考歷程與影響因素—兼談如何改進教學決定技能。課程與教學季刊，1（4），43-56。new window
簡紅珠（2005）。對臺灣中小學教學文化的幾點思考。課程與教學季刊，8（3），1-13。new window
西文部分
Ball, D. L.（1991）. Research on teaching mathematics: making subject matter knowledge part of the equation. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching, Vol. 2: Teachers’ knowledge of subject matter as it relates to their teaching practice（pp. 1-47）. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K.（1996）. Reform by the book: What is- or might be- the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instruction reform. Educational Researcher, 25（9）, 6-8, 14.
Ball, D. L., Tames, M. H., & Phelps, G.（2008）. Content knowledge for teaching what makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59（5）, 389-407.
Ben-Peretz, M.（1990）. The teacher- curriculum encounter: Freeing teachers from the tyranny of texts. NY: State University of New York Press.
Borko, H., & Putnam, R. T.（1995）. Expanding a teacher’s knowledge base: A cognitive psychological perspective on professional development. In T. R. Guskey, & M. Huberman (Eds.), Professional development in education: New paradigms and practices (p. 35-65). New York: Teacher College Press.
Borko, H., & Shavelson, R. J.（1990）. Teacher decision making. In B. F. Jones, & L. Idol.（Eds.）, Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction（311--346）. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bradley, J. S.（2008）. The genesis of the NSF curriculum implementation centers. In M. R. Meyer, & C. W. Langrall（Eds.）, A decade of middle school mathematics curriculum implementation: Lessons learned from the show-me project（pp.9-15）. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Brousseau, G.（1997）. Theory of didactical situations in mathematics. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Brown, M. W.（2009）. The teacher-tool relationship: Theorizing the design and use of curriculum materials. In J. T. Remillard, B. A. Herbel- Eisenmann, & G. M. Lloyd（Eds.）, Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction（pp. 17-36）. New York: Routledge.
Calderhead, D.（1984）. Teachers’ classroom decision making. London: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Carlgren, I., & Lindblad, S.（1991）. On teachers’ practical reasoning and professional knowledge: Considering conceptions of contest in teachers’ thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7（5/6）, 507-516.
Carpenter, T. P., & Fennema, E.（1991）. Research and cognitively guided instruction In E. Fennema, T. P. Carpeneter, & S. J. Lamon（Eds.）, Integrating research on teaching and learning mathematics（pp. 1-16）. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Carter, K., & Doyle, W.（1987）. Teachers’ knowledge structures and comprehension processes. In J. Calderhead（Ed.）, Exploring teacher thinking（pp. 147-160）. London: Cassell.
Clark, M. C., & Peterson, L.（1986）. Teachers’ thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock（Ed.）, Handbook of research of teaching（3rd ed., pp.255-296）. London: Macmillan Publishers.
Cohen, D. K., Raudenbush, S. W., & Ball, D. L.（2003）. Resources, instruction, and research. Educational Evaluation and Policy analysis, 25（2）, 119-142.
Confrey, J.（1981）. Conceptual change analysis: Implications for mathematics and curriculum. Curriculum Inquiry, 11（3）, 243-257.
Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J.（1988）. Teachers as curriculum planners: Narratives of experience. New York: Teachers College Press.
Doyle, W. (1992). Curriculum and pedagogy. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculu. (pp. 486-516). New York: Macmillan.
Duffee, L., & Aikenhead, G.（1992）. Curriculum change, student evaluation, and teacher practical knowledge. Science Education, 76（5）, 493-506.
Eisner, E. W.（2002）. The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs（3rd ed.）. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Elbaz, F.（1981）. The teacher’s “practical knowledge”: Report of a case study. Curriculum Inquiry, 11（1）, 43-71.
Elmore, R., & Sykes, G.（1992）. Curriculum policy. In P. J. Jackson （Ed.）, Handbook of research on curriculum（pp. 185-215）. New York: Macmillan.
Emmer, E. T., & Evertson, C. M.（1981）. Synthesis of research in classroom management. Educational leadership, 38（4）, 342-347.
Ernest, P.（1989）. The knowledge, beliefs and attitudes of the mathematics teacher: A model. Journal of Educational for Teaching, 15（1）, 13-33.
Escudero, I.,& S´anchez, v.（2007）. How do domains of knowledge integrate into mathematics teachers’ practice? Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 26, 312-327.
Fenstermacher, G. D.（1994）. The knower and the known: The nature of knowledge in research on teaching. Review of Research in Education. 20, 3-56.
Fogarty, J. L., Wang, M. C.,& Creek, R.（1983）. A descriptive study of experienced and novice teachers’ interactive instructional thoughts and actions. Journal of Educational Research, 77（1）, 22-32.
Givvin, K. B., Hiebert, J., Jacobs, J. K., Hollingsworth, H., & Gallimore, R.（2005）. Are there national patterns of teaching? Evidence from the TIMSS 1999 video study. Comparative Education Review, 49（3）, 311-343.
Goodlad, J.I., Klein, M.F., & Tye, K.A.（1979）. The domains of curriculum and their study. In J.I. Goodlad（ed.）, Curriculum inquiry（pp. 43-76）. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hall, G. E., & Loucks, S. F.（1977）. A developmental model for determining whether the treatment is actually implemented. American Educational Research Journal, 14（3）, 263-276.
Heaton, R.（1992）.Who is minding the mathematics content: A case study of a fifth grade teacher. Elementary School Journal, 93, 153-162.
Hill, H. C., Blunk, M. L., Charalambous, C. Y., Lewis, J. M., Phelps, G. C., Sleep, L., et al.（2008）. Mathematical knowledge for teaching and the mathematical quality of instruction: An exploratory study. Cognition and Instruction, 26, 430-511.
Hill, H., Ball, D., & Schilling, S.（2008）. Unpacking pedagogical content knowledge: Conceptualizing and measuring teachers’ topic-specific knowledge of students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39（4）, 372-400.
Jackson, P. W.（1990）. Life in Classroom. New York: Teacher College Press.
Jacobs, J. K., Hiebert, J., Givin, K. B., Hollingsworth, H., Garnier, H., & Wearne, D.（2006）. Does eight-grade mathematics teaching in the United States Align with the NCTM Standards? Results from the TIMSS 1995 and 1999 video studies. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37（1）,5-32.
Leikin, R., & Kawass, S.（2005）. Planning teaching an unfamiliar mathematics problem: The role of teachers’ experience in solving the problem and watching pupils solving it. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 24, 253-274.
Leinhardt, G., & Smith, D.A.（1985）. Expertise in mathematics instruction: Subject matter knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 247-271.
Lin, Y.（1993）. Early children student teachers’ images and their classroom practice. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinos at Urbana-Champaign.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G.（1985）. Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lloyd, G. M.（1999）. Two teachers’ conceptions of a reform-oriented curriculum: Implications for mathematics teacher development. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 2, 227-252.
Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S.,& Soloway, E.（1998）. New technologies for teacher professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14（1）, 33-52.
McClain, K., Zhao, Q., Visnovska, J., & Bowen, E.（2009）. Understaninding the role of the institutional context in the relationship between teachers and text. In J. T.Remillard, B. A. Herbel-Eisenmann & G. M. Lloyd（Eds.）, Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction（pp.56-69）. New York: routledge.
Merriam, S. B.（1998）. Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Middleton, J. A.（1999）. Curricular influences on the motivational beliefs and practice of two middle school mathematics teachers: A follow-up study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30（3）, 349-358.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M.（1994）. An expanded source book: Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Morine-Dershimer, G.（1991）. Learning to think like a teacher. Teaching and teacher education, 7（2）, 159-168.
Nathan, M. J., & Koedinger, K. R.（2000）. An inverstigation of teachers’ beliefs of students’ algebra development. Cognition and Instruction, 18（2）, 209-237.
Peterson, P. L., Marx, R. W., & Clark, C. M.（1978）. Teacher planning, teacher behavior, and student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 15（3）, 417-432.
Ponder, G., & Doyle, W. (1977, April). Teacher practicality and curriculum change: An ecological analysis. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, N. Y.
Remillard, J. T.（1999）. Curriculum materials in mathematics education reform: A framework for examining teachers’ curriculum development. Curriculum Inquiry, 29（3）, 315-342.
Remillard, J. T.（2005）. Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75（2）, 211-146.
Remillard, J. T., & Bryans, M. B.（2004）. Teachers’ orientations toward mathematics curriculum materials: Implications for teacher learning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35（5）, 352-388.
Reys, R.（2008）. The road to reform. In M. R. Meyer, & C. W. Langrall（Eds.）, A decade of middle school mathematics curriculum implementation: Lessons learned from the show-me project（pp.3-8）. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Richardson, V.（1996）. The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula, T. Buttery, & E. Guyton（Eds.）, Handbook of research on teacher education（2nd ed., pp.102-119）. New York: Macmillan Library Reference.
Richardson, V., & Placier, P. (2001). Teacher change. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 905 – 947). New York: Macmillan.
Ross, E. W., Cornett, J. W., & McCutcheon, G.（1992）. Teacher personal theorizing and curriculum and teaching. In E. W. Ross, J. W. Cornett, & G. McCutcheon（Eds.）, Teacher personal theorizing: connecting curriculum practice, theory, and research（pp.3-18.）. Albany, NY: Sate University of New York Press.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2000). Models of the teaching process. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 18（3）, 243-261.
Schoenfeld, A. H., Minstrell, J., & Zee, E. V. (2000). The detailed analysis of an established teacher’s non-traditional lesson. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 18（3）, 281-325.
Schwab, J. J.（1973）. The practical 3: Translation to curriculum. School Review, 81, 501-522.
Secada, W. G., & Adajian, L. B.（1997）. Mathematics teachers’ change in the context of their professional communities. In E. Fennema., & B. S. Nelson（Eds.）, teachers in Mathematics transition（pp.193-219）. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Shavelson, R. J., & Stern, P.（1981）. Research on teachers’ pedagogical thoughts, judgments, decisions, and behavior. Review of Educational Research, 51（4）, 455-498.
Shechtman, N., Roschelle, Haertel, G., & Knudsen, J.（2010）. Investigating links from teacher knowledge, to classroom practice, to student learning in the instructional system of the middle-school mathematics classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 28（3）, 317-359.
Sherin, M. G., & Drake, C.（2009）. Curriculum strategy framework: Investigating patterns in teachers’ use of a reform-based elementary mathematics curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 41（4）, 467-500.
Sherin, M. G., Sherin, B. L.,& Madanes, R.（2000）. Exploring diverse accuounts of teacher knowledge. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 18（3）, 356-375.
Shkedi, A.（2009）. From curriculum guide to classroom practice: Teachers’ narratives of curriculum application. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 41（6）, 833-854.
Shulman, L.（1986）. Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching. In M. C. Wittrock（Ed.）, Handbook of research of teaching（3rd ed., pp.3-36）. New York: Macmillan.
Shulman, L.（1987）. Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57（1）, 1-22.
Simon, M（1995）. Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist perspective. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26（2）, 114-145.
Snyder, J., Bolin, F., & Zumwalt, K. (1992). Curriculum implementation. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp.402-435). New York: Macmillan.
Speer, N.M.（2005）. Issues of methods and theory in the study of mathematics teachers’ professed and attributed beliefs. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 58（3）, 361-391.
Stake, R. E.（1995）. The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stein, M. K., Baxter, J. A., & Leinhardt, G.（1990）.Subject matter knowledge and elementary instruction: A case from functions and graphing. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 639-663.
Stein, M. K., Remillard, J., & Smith, M. S.（2007）. How curriculum influences student learning. In F. K. Lester, Jr.（Ed.）, Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning（pp. 319-369）. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Stein, M., Grover, B., & Henningsen, M. (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and Reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 455-488.
Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J.（2004）. Improving mathematics teaching. Educational leadership, 61（5）, 12-17.
Sullivan, P., & Mousley, J. (2001). Thinking teaching: Seeing mathematics teachers as active decision makers. In F. –L. Lin & T. Cooney (Eds.), Making sense of mathematics teacher education (pp. 147-164). Dordrecht, Boston : Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Tarr, J. E., Reys, R. E., Reys, B. J., Chváez, Ó., Shih, J.,& Osterlind, S. J.（2008）. The impact of middle-grades mathematics curricula and the classroom learning environment on student achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39（3）, 247-280.
Thompson, A.（1992）. Teachers’ beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of the research. In A. D. Grouws（Ed.）, Handbook of research on mathematics learning and teaching（pp. 127-146）. New York: Macmillan.
Tyler, R. W.（1949）. Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
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.
Windschitl, M.（2002）. Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers. Review of Educational Research, 72（2）, 131-175.
Yin, R. K.（2009）. Case study research: Design and methods（4th ed.）. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Yinger, R. J.（1980）. A study of teacher planning. The Elementary School Journal, 80（3）, 107-127.


 
 
 
 
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

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：576（臺灣：476，國外：100） ／ 本年度總使用人次：928275 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：66731581
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上