數學課程實施－一位國小資深教師的個案研究

A Case Study-How Did an Experienced Teacher Implement Mathematics Curriculum in Her Classroom?

10.6173/CJSE.2011.1902.01

徐偉民(Wei-Min Hsu)

國小教師 ； 數學課程 ； 課程實施 ； Elementary School Teacher ； Mathematics Curriculum ； Curriculum Implementation

科學教育學刊

19卷2期（2011 / 04 / 01）

101 - 122

繁體中文

本研究的目的在瞭解教室內數學課程實施的情形，並探討影響教師數學課程實施的因素。以一位任教超過十年的國小資深教師為對象，採用個案研究法，透過教學觀察和訪談來蒐集資料。結果發現，在課程實施方面，雖然大部分源自教科書，但是個案教師會調整問題的情境和表徵方式；在數學任務的類型上，個案教師大部分採用高認知需求的數學任務，並以解題、發表、討論的方式來實施，過程中強調不同表徵間的連結。在影響課程實施的因素上，本研究發現個人的教學知識、信念和角色定位，對個案教師數學課程實施的影響較大，相較之下教科書的特色、學生的表現和脈絡等因素影響較小，但還是會影響個案教師數學任務的使用與實施。

The purpose of this study was to explore how an experienced elementary school teacher implemented mathematics curriculum in her classroom, and to identify factors that were considered during the implementation process. Case study methodology was used to study a sixth-grade teacher with more than 10 years teaching experience. The primary data sources were classroom observations and teacher interviews collected during the 2006-07 school year. Findings of this study indicated that the teacher actively chose and then frequently adjusted mathematics tasks from the textbook. Most of the tasks she used during her teaching were classified as high cognitive demand mathematical tasks. She regularly implemented these tasks in an interactive way and provided many opportunities for students to discuss and explain their thinking as they worked on and completed the tasks. The teacher usually actively interpreted the students' reactions and took account of textbook features in deciding how to implement mathematics tasks. This study also found teacher identity, which included her teaching knowledge, beliefs about students and teaching, and professional role identity, had significant impact on her curriculum implementation. The limitations of the teaching context that the teacher faced did not seem to be considered during her curriculum implementation.

1. 徐偉民、徐于婷(2009)。國小數學教科書代數教材之內容分析：臺灣與香港之比較。教育實踐與研究，22(2)，67-94。
   連結：
2. 陳仁輝、楊德清(2010)。臺灣、美國與新加坡七年級代數教材之比較研究。科學教育學刊，18(1)，43-61。
   連結：
3. Artzt, A. F.,Armour-Thomas, E.(2002).Becoming a reflective mathematics teacher: A guide for observations and self-assessment.Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
4. Ben-Peretz, M.(1990).The teacher-curriculum encounter: Freeing teachers from the tyranny of texts.Albany, NY:State University of New York Press.
5. Bishop, A. J.(ed.),Clements, M. A.(ed.),Keitel, C.(ed.),Kilpatrick, J.(ed.),Laborde, C.(ed.)(1996).International handbook of mathematics education.Dordrecht, The Netherlands:Kluwer Academic.
6. Brown, M.(2002).Evanston, IL.,Northwestern University.
7. Brown, S. A.,Pitvorec, K.,Ditto, C.,Kelso, C. R.(2009).Reconceiving fidelity of implementation: An investigation of elementary whole-number lessons.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,40(4),363-395.
8. Burke, M. J.(ed.),Curcio, F. R.(ed.)(2000).NCTM 2000 Yearbook-Learning mathematics for a new century.Reston, VA:National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
9. Charalambous, C. Y.,Delaney, S.,Hsu, H.-Y.,Mesa, V.(2010).A comparative analysis of the addition and subtraction of fractions in textbooks from three countries.Mathematical Thinking and Learning,12(2),117-151.
10. Dye, J. F.,Schatz, I. M.,Rosenberg, B. A.,Coleman, S. T.(2000).Constant comparison method: A kaleidoscope of data.The Qualitative Report,4(1/2)
11. Glatthorn, A.(1987).Curriculum leadership.Glenview, IL:Scott Foresman.
12. Goodlad, J.(1979).Curriculum inquiry: The study of curriculum practice.New York:McGraw-Hill.
13. Grouws, D. A.(2008).Opportunity to learn: Three indices.Conference of Investigating the Relationships between Mathematics Teaching and Development of Curriculum,Chiayi, Taiwan:
14. Henningsen, M.,Stein, M. K.(1997).Mathematical tasks and student cognition: Classroom-based factors that support and inhabit high-level mathematical thinking and reasoning.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,28(5),524-549.
15. Hudson, P.,Miller, S. P.(2006).Designing and implementing mathematics instruction for students with diverse learning needs.Boston:Pearson.
16. Jackson, P. W.(ed.)(1992).Handbook of research on curriculum.New York:Macmillan.
17. Kloosterman, P.(ed.),Lester, F. K., Jr.(ed.)(2004).Results and interpretations of the 1990 through 2000 mathematics assessments of the National Assessment of Educational Progress.Reston, VA:National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
18. Lester, F. K., Jr.(ed.)(2007).Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning.Charlotte, NC:Information Age.
19. Lincoln, Y. S.,Cuba, E. G.(1985).Naturalistic inquiry.Newbury Park, CA:Sage.
20. Lloyd, G. M.(2008).Curriculum use while learning to teach: One student teacher's appropriation of mathematics curriculum materials.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,39(1),63-94.
21. Mullis, I. V. S.,Martin, M. O.,Gonzalez, E. J.,Chrostowski, S. J.(2004).TIMSS 2003 international mathematics report: Findings from IEA's trends in international mathematics and science study at the fourth and eighth grades.Chestnut Hill, MA:TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
22. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics(1989).Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics.Reston, VA:National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
23. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics(2000).Principles and standards for school mathematics.Reston, VA:National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
24. Nicol, C. C.,Crespo, S. M.(2006).Learning to teach with mathematics textbooks: How preservice teachers interpret and use curriculum materials.Educational Studies in Mathematics,62(3),331-355.
25. Remillard, J. T.(1999).Curriculum materials in mathematics education reform: A framework for examining teachers' curriculum development.Curriculum Inquiry,29(3),315-342.
26. Remillard, J. T.(2005).Examining key concepts in research on teachers' use of mathematics curricular.Review of Educational Research,75(2),211-246.
27. 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.
28. Silver, E. A.,Mesa, V. M.,Morris, K. A.,Star, J. R.,Benken, B. M.(2009).Teaching mathematics for understanding: An analysis of lessons submitted by teachers seeking NBPTS certification.American Educational Research Journal,46(2),501-531.
29. Son, J.-W.,Senk, S. L.(2010).How reform curricula in the USA and Korea present multiplication and division of fractions.Educational Studies in Mathematics,74(2),117-142.
30. Stein, M. K.,Smith, M. S.,Henningsen, M. A.,Silver, E. A.(2000).Implementing standards-based mathematics instruction: A casebook for professional development.New York:Teachers College.
31. Tarr, J. E.,Reys, R. E.,Reys, B. J.,Chávez, 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.
32. 吳麗玲、楊德清(2007)。臺灣、新加坡與美國五、六年級分數教材佈題呈現與知識屬性差異之研究。國立編譯館館刊，35(1)，27-41。
33. 教育部(2003)。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要：數學學習領域。臺北市:教育部。
34. 陳向明(2004)。社會科學質的研究。臺北市:五南。
35. 鍾靜(2005)。論數學課程近十年之變革。教育研究月刊，133，124-134。

1. 曾于珏、徐偉民(2013)。臺灣、芬蘭、新加坡國小數學教科書代數教材之比較。教科書研究，6(2)，69-103。
2. 陳埩淑(2020)。幼教師「空間與圖形」課程實施之探討。學校行政，129，115-140。
3. 董修齊、徐偉民(2012)。國小教科書幾何教材內容之比較：以臺灣與芬蘭為例。當代教育研究，20(3)，39-86。
4. 黃皇元、徐偉民(2012)。臺灣與芬蘭國小數學教科書分數教材內容之分析。課程與教學，15(3)，75-108。
5. 廖玉婷、徐偉民(2012)。參與專業社群對國小教師數學教學的影響。彰化師大教育學報，22，1-24。
6. 劉曼麗、徐偉民(2015)。國小攜手計畫數學補救教學課程決定與教學實施之探究。當代教育研究季刊，23(1)，113-147。
7. 劉玉玲,沈淑芬(2019)。國中生數學自我概念、數學學習策略與數學學業成就之模式建構。課程與教學，22(3)，187-214。
8. 徐偉民(2013)。國小教師數學教科書使用之初探。科學教育學刊，21(1)，25-48。
9. 徐偉民(2013)。國小數學教科書數學問題類型與呈現方式之比較分析─以臺灣、芬蘭、新加坡為例。科學教育學刊，21(3)，263-289。
10. 徐偉民(2017)。小學數學教科書使用之探究。教科書研究，10(2)，99-132。
11. 徐偉民、柯富渝(2014)。臺灣、芬蘭、新加坡國小數學教科書幾何教材之比較。教科書研究，7(3)，101-141。