理化教師學科教學知識的探討－以酸鹼中和為例

A Study on the Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Two Physical Science Teachers: Using the Acid-base Neutralization as an Example

10.3966/207136492016040901004

黃平屯(Ping-Tun Huang)；郭重吉(Chorng-Jee Guo)；張惠博(Huey-Por Chang)

理化教師 ； 學科教學知識 ； 酸鹼中和 ； physical science teacher ； pedagogical content knowledge ； acid-base neutralization

師資培育與教師專業發展期刊

9卷1期（2016 / 04 / 01）

83 - 113

繁體中文

本研究旨在探查兩位理化教師酸鹼中和主題教學的學科教學知識（Pedagogical Content Knowledge, PCK）面向內涵和關係。蒐集資料主要有：晤談與教學討論的錄音、教學設計稿、教學錄影。依紮根理論分6 個步驟分析，包括：形成概念、精緻概念、編碼資料和概念、分類概念、統整展現各面向的教學要素、確認PCK 各面向關係。研究發現如下：（1）教師展現PCK 的主要面向和文獻相符，包括：教學取向、關於學生理解科學的知識、科學課程知識、教學表徵和策略知識與評量知識。所展現PCK 的教學要素呈現相似與相異內涵，相異內涵是基於「教師如何教」、「學生學什麼和如何學」觀點。（2）教師展現PCK 面向的關聯呈現階層性單向影響，教學取向為上階層，關於學生理解科學的知識和課程知識居中，教學策略和表徵知識與評量知識為下階層且相互影響。（3）教師展現PCK 面向的關聯係透過相關教學要素連結，其中「科學教學本質」、「教師角色」、「學習策略」和「學習疑難」是關鍵。（4）教師展現PCK 品質倚賴於各個面向的統整程度。

This study aimed to explore the contents of two teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) as it unfolded in teaching practice and to build up portrayals of their PCK on the teaching of a unit on acid-base neutralization. Interrelationships among contents in theses dimensions were also investigated. Using qualitative methodology for data collection, a range of data were collected from transcripts of stimulated interviews and audio recordings of meetings, drafts of teaching plans, and transcripts of classroom videos. Analysis of data went through a series of steps, starting from analysis of collected data, to formation of concepts, categories, instructional elements, and finally to the formulation of research claims. The findings of this study are summarized as follows: (1) The main dimensions of the teachers’ enacted PCK are consistent with literature including teaching orientations, students’ understanding of scientific knowledge, curriculum, instructional representations and strategies, and assessment. There are similar and different characteristics between the instructional elements of case teachers’ PCK along different dimensions. The different characteristics are based on teacher’s knowledge about ＂how should teachers teach,＂ ＂how should students learn＂ and ＂what should students learn＂. (2) There is a hierarchical and causal relationship between the various dimensions of PCK. Instructional orientation is located in the upper level. Knowledge of students’ understanding of scientific and knowledge of curriculum are located in the intermediate level. The instructional representations and strategies and assessment are located in the low level, bearing mutual influence with each other. (3) The pattern of a case teachers’ enacted PCK is an integrated result of the interrelationships among the instructional elements belonging to the various knowledge dimensions. Within the case teachers’ PCK, there were four instructional elements including ＂nature of science teaching,＂ ＂role of teacher,＂ ＂ learning strategies ＂and＂ students’ learning predicaments＂ which were found to have strong impacts on teachers’ PCK. Therefore the above four instructional elements are the keys to teachers’ instructional decisions. (4) The quality of PCK depends on the degree of integration of the interrelationships among the various dimensions of PCK.

1. 張世忠、蔡孟芳、陳鶴元(2012)。國中科學教師的學科教學知識與科學教學導向之探討。科學教育學刊，20(5)，413-433。
   連結：
2. Bell, B.,Cowie, B.(2001).The characteristics for formative assessment in science education.Science Education,85(5),536-553.
3. Boz, Y.(2009).Turkrsh prospective chemistry teachers' alternative conceptions about acids and bases.School Science and Mathematics,109(4),12-22.
4. Clermont, C. P.,Borko, H.,Krajcik, J. S.(1994).Comparative study of the pedagogical content knowledge of experienced and novice chemical demonstrators.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,31(4),419-441.
5. Cochran, K. F.,DeRuiter, J. A.,King, R. A.(1993).Pedagogical content knowing: An integrative model for teacher preparation.Journal of Teacher Education,44,263-272.
6. Cohen, R.,Yarden, A.(2009).Experienced junior-high-school teachers' PCK in light of a curriculum change: The cell is to be studied longitudinally.Research in Science Education,39(1),131-155.
7. Cronin-Jones, L. L.(1991).Science teacher beliefs and their influence on curriculum implementation: Two case studies.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,28(3),235-250.
8. Demircioglu, G.,Ayas, A.,Demircioglu, H.(2005).Conceptual change achieved through a new teaching program on acids and bases.Chemistry Education: Research and Practice,6(1),36-51.
9. Dreschsler, M.,Van Driel, J.(2008).Experienced teachers' pedagogical content knowledge of teaching acidbase chemistry.Research in Science Education,38(5),611-631.
10. Duffee, L.,Aikenhead, G.(1992).Curriculum change, student evaluation, and teacher practical knowledge.Science Education,76(5),493-506.
11. Fernandez-Balboa, J. M.,Stiehl, J.(1995).Effective professors' pedagogical processes.Teaching and Teacher Education,11(3),293-306.
12. Friedrichsen, P. M.,Dana, T. M.(2005).Substantive-level theory of highly regarded secondary biology teachers' science teaching orientations.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,42(2),218-244.
13. Furió-Más, C.,Calatayud, M. L.,Guisasola, J.,Furió-Gómez, C.(2005).How are the concepts and theories of acid base reactions presented? Chemistry in textbooks and as presented by teachers.International Journal of Science Education,27(11),1337-1358.
14. Geddis, A. N.,Onslow, B.,Beynon, C.,Oesch, J.(1993).Transforming content knowledge: Learning to teach about isotopes.Science Education,77(6),575-591.
15. Gess-Newsome, J.(Ed.),Lederman, N. G.(Ed.)(1999).Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education.Netherlands:Springer.
16. Gess-Newsome, J.(Ed.),Lederman, N. G.(Ed.)(1999).Pedagogical content knowledge and science education.Dordrecht, Netherlands:Kluwer Academic.
17. Gess-Newsome, J.(Ed.),Lederman, N. G.(Ed.)(1999).Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education.Boston, MA:Kluwer.
18. Grossman, P. L.(1990).The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education.New York, NY:The Teachers College Press.
19. Hashweh, M.(1985).Stanford, CA,Stanford Graduate School of Education.
20. Hashweh, M. Z.(2005).Teacher pedagogical constructions: A reconfiguration of pedagogical content knowledge.Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice,11,273-292.
21. Koballa, T. R.,Glynn, S. M.,Upson, L.,Coleman, D.(2005).Conceptions of teaching science held by novice teachers in an alternative certification program.Journal of Science Teacher Education,16(4),287-308.
22. Lee, E.,Luft, J. A.(2008).Experienced secondary science teachers' representation of pedagogical content knowledge.International Journal of Science Education,30(10),1343-1363.
23. Loughran, J.,Berry, A.,Mulhall, P.(2006).Understanding and developing science teachers' pedagogical content knowledge.Rotterdam, Netherlands:Sense.
24. Marks, R.(1990).Pedagogical content knowledge: From a mathematical case to a modified conception.Journal of Teacher Education,41(3),3-11.
25. Park, S.,Chen, Y. C.(2012).Mapping out the integration of the components of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): Examples from high school biology classrooms.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,49(7),922-941.
26. Park, S.,Oliver, S. J.(2008).Revisiting the conceptualization of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): Pedagogical content knowledge as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as professionals.Research in Science Education,38(3),261-284.
27. Schneider, R. M.,Plasman, K.(2011).Science teacher learning progressions: A review of science teachers' pedagogical content knowledge development.Review of Educational Research,81(4),530-565.
28. Shulman, L. S.(1986).Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.Educational Researcher,15(2),4-14.
29. Shulman, L. S.(1987).Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform.Harvard Educational Review,57(1),1-22.
30. Smith, D. C.,Neale, D. C.(1989).The construction of subject matter knowledge in primary science teaching.Teaching & Teacher Education,5(1),1-20.
31. Strauss, A.、Corbin, J.、吳芝儀譯、廖梅花譯(2001)。質性研究入門：紮根理論研究方法。嘉義市=Chiayi, Taiwan:濤石文化=Waterstone。
32. Tamir, P.(1988).The relationship between cognitive preferences, student background and achievement in science.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,25(3),201-216.
33. van Driel, J. H.,Verloop, N.,de Vos, W.(1998).Developing science teachers' pedagogical content knowledge.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,35(6),673-695.
34. Veal, W. R.,MaKinster, J. G.(1999).Pedagogical content knowledge taxonomies.Electronic Journal of Science Education,3(4)
35. Wallace, C. S.,Kang, N. H.(2004).An investigation of experienced secondary science teachers' beliefs about inquiry: An examination of competing belief sets.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,41(9),936-960.
36. Wittrock, M. C.(Ed.)(1986).Handbook of research on teaching.New York, NY:Macmillan.
37. 高敬文(1999)。質化研究方法論。臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:師大書苑=Shtabook。
38. 黃瑞琴(1991)。質的教育研究法。臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:心理=Psychological Publishing。
39. 潘淑滿(2003)。質性研究理論與應用。臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:心理=Psychological Publishing。