運用視覺敘事法探討科學教師的教學決策～一位自然領域國教輔導員的個案研究

Using Visual Narratives to Investigate Science Teacher's Teaching Decisions: A Case Study of one Compulsory Education Advisory Group Member

10.7060/KNUJST.200712.0077

李松濤(Sung-Tao Lee)；林煥祥(Huann-Shyang Lin)；洪振方(Jeng-Fung Hung)

視覺敘事 ； 教學決策 ； 國教輔導員 ； 教學信念 ； visual narrative ； teaching decisions ； compulsory education advisor ； teaching beliefs

高雄師大學報：自然科學與科技類

23期（2007 / 12 / 01）

77 - 98

繁體中文

本文旨在以視覺敘事法針對一位參與國教輔導團工作的國小自然領域教師進行其科學教學決策之研究。文中首先說明選擇研究個案教師的意義，接著藉由教師決策研究的相關文獻回顧來闡明重新定位教學決策研究之重要性，然後論述「視覺敘事法」的重要理論基礎，最後以此理念整合研究設計。研究的結果顯示，個案教師在「力與運動」單元中的教學過程可以分成「默契建立」、「探究活動」以及「作品創作」等階段。就「問題診斷與覺察」的觀點來看，「默契建立」階段在乎與學生建立溝通模式，「探究活動」階段則著重在情境的佈置與設計，而「作品創作」階段則希望啟發學生的創意製作比賽成品。就「行動選擇與實施」觀點而言，開放性的「問題拋出」以及「小組討論/白板呈現/公開評量」是個案教師最常運用的教學行動。教學信念分析結果顯示，個案教師在教學中十分重視學生的觀摩學習、回饋反思以及自我評量能力，而且在探究活動中也希望培育出學生基本的探究能力而且能夠了解整個探究學習的歷程。

By focusing on a compulsory education advisory group member in the field of science, who is also an elementary science teacher, the purpose of this study is intended to use visual narratives to explore her teaching decisions. The implication of the case teacher selection in this study was first discussed, and then the importance of the redefinition of teaching decisions is demonstrated through literature review. Afterwards, the theoretical basis of visual narratives and its applications are investigated, and finally the research framework of this study is established. The results show that this case teacher's teaching in this ”force and motion” unit can be divided into three stages as tacit agreement building, inquiry activity and product creation during which periods the effective communication, context arrangement and creative product design are emphasized from the perspective of ”problem diagnosis and perception”. From the perspective of ”action selection and implementation”, ”question posing” and ”discussion/presentation/evaluation” are the two most used teaching actions. Her teaching beliefs reveal that she thinks highly of students' emulation, reflection and self-assessment abilities and she also hopes that students can learn some basic inquiry abilities and can understand the process of inquiry in those inquiry activities she arranged.

1. 王靜如(2001)。小學教師科學本質概念及教學之研究。科學教育學刊，9(2)，197-217。
   連結：
2. Beach, L. R.(1997).The psychology of decision making: people in organizations.Sage.
3. Behar-Horenstein, L. S.,Morgan, R. R.(1995).Narrative research, Teaching, and Teacher Thinking: Perspectives and possibilities.Peabody Journal of Education,70(2),139-161.
4. Brehmer, B.,R. Hogarth (Ed.)(1990).Insights in decision making.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
5. Bruner, J. S.(1985).Narrative and paradigmatic modes of thought, in the 1985 Yearbook of the National Society for study of education.learning and teaching: The ways of knowing.
6. Bruner, J. S.(1986).Actual minds, possible worlds.Cambridge, Mass:Harvard University Press.
7. Bybee, R. W.(1993).Reforming science education.Teachers College, Columbia University.
8. Calderhead, J.,D. C. Berliner,R. C. Calfee (Eds.)(1996).Handbook of Educational Psychology.Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
9. Clandinin, D. J.,Connelly, F. M.(2000).Narrative Inquiry: experience and story in qualitative research.San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
10. Clark, C. M.,Peterson, P. L.,M. C. Wittrock (Ed.)(1986).Handbook of research on teaching.New York:MacMillan Publishing Company.
11. Cochran-Smith, M.,Lytle, S.(1999).The teacher research movement: a decade later.Educational Researcher,28(7),15-25.
12. Cohen, L.,Manion, L.,Morrison, K.(2001).Research methods in education.London:Routledge Falmer.
13. Connelly, F. M.,Clandinin, D. J.(1986).On narrative method, personal philosophy, and narrative unities in the story of teaching.Journal of research in science teaching,23(4),293-310.
14. Creswell, J. W.(1998).Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five traditions.Sage.
15. Doyle, W.(1997).Heard any really good stories lately? A critique of the critics of narrative in educational research.Teaching and teacher education,13(1),93-99.
16. Duffee, L.,Aikenhead, G.(1992).Curriculum Change, Student Evaluation, and Teacher Practical Knowledge.Science Teacher Education,76(5),493-506.
17. Emmison, M.,Smith, P.(2000).Researching the visual.Sage.
18. Golombek, P.,Johnson, K.(2004).Narrative inquiry as a mediational space: examining emotional and cognitive dissonance in second-language teachers` development.Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice,10(3),307-327.
19. Gribble, J.,Briggs, S.,Black, P.,Abell, S. K.,J. Wallace,W. Louden (Eds.)(2002).Dilemmas of science teaching.RoutledgeFalmer.
20. Gudmundsdóttir, S.(1991).Story-maker, story-teller: narrative structures in curriculum.Journal of curriculum studies,23(3),207-218.
21. Gudmundsdóttir, S.,V. Richardson (Ed.)(2001).Handbook of research on teaching.Washington D. C.:American Educational Research Association.
22. Harper, D.,N. Denzin,Y. Lincoln (Eds.)(2000).Handbook of qualitative research.Sage.
23. Johnson, G. C.(2004).Reconceptualising the visual in narrative inquiry into teaching.Teaching and teacher education,20,423-434.
24. Johnson, G. C.(2002).Using visual narrative and poststructuralism to (re)read a student teacher`s professional practice.Teaching and teacher education,18,387-404.
25. Jones, M. G.,Carter, G.,J. J. Mintzes,J. H. wandersee,J. D. Novak (Eds.)(1998).Teaching science for understanding: a human constructivist view Handbook of qualitative research.Academic Press.
26. Lee, S. T.,Lin, H. S.(2005).Using argumentation to investigate science teachers` teaching practices: the perspective of instructional decisions and justifications.International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,3(3),429-461.
27. Lin, M. C.,Burbules, N. C.,K. Tobin (Ed.)(1993).The practice of constructivism in science education.Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
28. Marva, C.(2001).Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.Seattle, WA:
29. McGinnis, J. R.,Yeany, R. H.(1993).Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching.Georgia:Atlanta.
30. Miles, M. B.,Huberman, A. M.(1994).Qualitative data analysis.Sage.
31. Munby, H.(1984).A qualitative approach to the study of a teacher`s beliefs.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,21(1),27-38.
32. National Research Council(1996).NSTA Pathways to the Science Standards: Guidelines for Moving the Vision into Practice.Washington, DC:National Academy Press.
33. National Research Council(2000).Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards.Washington, DC:National Academy Press.
34. National Research Council(1996).The National Science Education Standards.Washington, DC:National Academy Press.
35. Noddings, N.,Witherall, C.,C. Witherall,N. Noddings (Eds.)(1991).Stories lives tell: Narrative and dialogue in education.New York:Teachers College Press.
36. Ollerenshaw, J.,Creswell, J. W.(2002).Narrative Research: A comparison of two restorying data analysis approaches.Qualitative Inquiry,8(3),329-347.
37. Orasanu, J.,Connolly, T.,G. A. Klein,J. Orasanu,R. Calderwood,C. E. Zsambok (Eds.)(1993).Decision making in action: models and methods.Norwood, New Jersey:Ablex Publishing Corporation.
38. Shapiro, B.,B. J. Fraser,K. G. Tobin (Eds.)(1998).International handbook of science education.Kluwer Academic.
39. Shulman, L. S.(1987).Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform.Harvard Educational Review,57(1),1-22.
40. Tobin, K.,A. E. Kelly,R. A. Lesh (Eds.)(2000).Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education.Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc..
41. Tobin, K.,Tippins, D. J.,K. Tobin (Ed.)(1993).The practice of constructivism in science education.Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
42. Westerman, D. A.(1991).Teacher Decision Making by Experts and Novices across Three Stages: Preactive, Interactive, and Postactive.Arlington, Virginia:Marymount University.
43. 李章瑋(1995)。台北市，台北市立師範學院初等教育研究所。
44. 范瓊盛(1998)。彰化市，國立彰化師範大學。
45. 高雄市政府教育局國民教育輔導團作業要點
46. 教育部(2003)。九十二年度九年一貫課程與教學深耕計畫。台北:教育部。
47. 陳美玉、師資培育發展促進會主編(2003)。九年一貫與師資培育。台北市:五南。
48. 馮松林(1993)。彰化市，國立彰化師範大學。
49. 黃義良(2003)。國中小「九年一貫課程」輔導員的專業認知、工作壓力與調適需求現況之相關研究。人文及社會學科教學通訊，13(5)，6-19。
50. 溫家男(2002)。高雄市，國立高雄師範大學。
51. 簡紅珠(1998)。教師教學決定：內涵、思考歷程與影響因素－兼談如何改進教學技能。課程與教學季刊，1(4)，43-56。

1. 蘇明俊、郭孟鑫(2015)。探討天文教學策略的個案研究。新竹教育大學教育學報，32(1)，61-91。